J.E. Sawyer on Fallout weapon skills

[DustyTraveller]

Weapon progression is good thing, forced skill progression is a whole another matter. I mean in FO1/2 you didn't have to switch to EW or big guns. With 130+ small arms skill and the right perks you could stay competitive at the later levels, even without the gauss weapons You did have to play the game a bit differently which is what I guess Sawyer wanted to promote in games.

In FO3 you had to move on to big guns or energy weapons because you'd max out your small arms skill well before lvl 10. By lvl 20 you'd have to start using your third weapon skill.

 

[Sub-Human]

This is hardly an approach to appeal to the casual (and completionist is *not* casual gaming BTW) gamer...

By casual gamer I meant a non-roleplaying pal. Like a guy who plays an RPG because it's a new game/it has a lot of trophies, not because it could potentially offer a unique roleplaying experience.

Compare that to the original Fallout 1/2, where Throwing was completely useless and Big Guns were too cumbersome to be used by anyone other than Marcus.

The problem with Throwing was simply because it was underdeveloped. I dunno the whole story, but perhaps if they had more time they could have added a lot more throwing weapons into the game. Things like machetes and futuristic energy-type axes or something. Not because it was an independent skill, as it could easily be much more efficient with more items.

As for Big Guns, I believe the ammo was not really big - things like the shotgun needed buck which is essentially not something you'd easily carry in packs and the minigun could be a devastating weapon. Of course, there was a different strategy applied to them (better to use on groups of enemies rather than just one), making it a more efficient end-game weapon, which it is already.

 

[gumbarrel]

As for JES, I don't think he's a proponent of frictionless gaming. He specifically makes mention that he wanted/wants to make different playstyles (melee/guns/explosives/energy weapons) have different benefits and challenges, while maintaining the validity of each play style.

This. But the vast majority of people on the thread simply refuse to get this, and keep complaining about something, that JES doesn't advocate at all.

 

[Walpknut]

Throwing was rather useless, and I am glad they combined it with other skills.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

Well, J.E. Sawyer has stated he's against strategic failures and generally prefers the efficiency gaps between builds to be reduced in the past, and you can clearly see how that influenced his design in Van Buren and New Vegas. I don't know, maybe he's right, I'm personally not too grumpy about it, but it's difficult to deny his position on the subjects.

 

[gumbarrel]

And what are these "strategic failiures" that he is agianst?

Some related info from his formspring:

Is it the developers' fault if players make bad decisions?


It's the developer's fault if players make bad decisions for which they would have no reasonable expectation of predicting the outcome. A complaint with the original Icewind Dale is that the number of magical short bows is extremely low. Players don't have to invest specifically in short bows, but if they did, it's not reasonable to assume that players will intuit the shortage and plan accordingly.

If the developers clearly tell the player that there aren't any magical short bows in the game, they're off the hook for the player's decisions, but there's still the question of what they're accomplishing by making that choice.

What about "weighted skills" where you have to spend more points to raise some skill compared to others? It was suggested on NMA, and it's only one of many ways you could differentiate between "core" skills and "late-game/less used" skills.

I'm not sure that really solves the problem of late game skills, but it does address relative skill imbalance. For a late game skill, you could use a skill system that branches at certain points. E.g. you could have Energy Weapons open up only after you are 10th level and have 50 in Guns and Science.

If the overall amount of skillpoints a given character earns were trimmed down, couldn't tagging and building up energy weapons be considered an investment for the late-game? This would seem like a good way to implement the implied progression in FO1, no?

If that's the intended progression, why even organize the skills that way? Why not organize the skills by some other criteria so a player doesn't have to treat a subset of the skills differently from everything else in the game?

I just wanted to say that I find your arguments on EW compelling and out of context I would completely agree with you. It seems though, that your way of looking at this issue is generally inconsistent with the imaginative 'spirit' of the Fallout universe.

My job is fundamentally about making the game experience good for our audience. This audience includes Fallout veterans, RPG veterans who may be new to Fallout, people who are new to RPGs, and people who are new to gaming in general. Not everyone in this group will be happy, and trying to make them all happy certainly won't have good results, but many design decisions have to start with the assumption that the player only knows what the game's creators communicate to them.

At a certain point in F:NV's development, I was trying to create Big Guns to span the early game, mid game, and late game. It was an enormous pain in the ass, because trying to think up early game Big Guns that felt balanced with, say, a 9mm Pistol, strained the imagination. In documents, there were weapons that filled those slots, but they seemed forced and odd -- especially since so many of the "canonical" Big Guns were generally high-end weapons. Players liked using the Big Guns, and in a manner similar to EWs, many people wanted those Big Guns to be powerful. The way to make Big Guns feel appropriately powerful and not have a gaping low end was to abolish the Big Guns skill and migrate the weapons to other skills. You still used your Miniguns and Gatling Lasers, but you didn't have to tag a skill and then wander the wasteland for 6 hours before you found a weapon that utilized it.

It seemed to work pretty well for F:NV, though a remaining contention and expectation is that EWs should be more powerful than conventional firearms. If that expectation is widespread enough, maybe it makes sense to re-organize the skills again for future games. My first focus is always to ensure that when a player starts the game and decides what kind of character he or she wants to play, the options we give to the player are valid from the beginning of the game to the end. Each style of play should have its own rewards and challenges, but character types should not be intentionally neglected, they should not be secretly designed to be inherently superior to each other, and they shouldn't assume that the player has knowledge that they won't reasonably have.

Really, I think you could organize weapon skills in a bunch of different ways. For me, the bottom line is that if a player focuses on a skill, they should get pretty consistent gameplay out of it throughout the game. This includes access to items that make use of it, places where it can and can't be used to provide appropriate challenges/triumphs, and a rough semblance of overall balance between it and other skills.

The Fallout world very clearly isn't our world though. Radiation doesn't turn humans into zombies and make bugs gigantic. And in the 1950s retro-futuristic style of Fallout, plasma and lasers just ARE inherently superior. Get with the program Sawyer.

"Inherently superior" sets a pretty clear standard, so let's rename Guns and Energy Weapons to something else. Let's call them "Bad Guns" and "Good Guns". You find Bad Guns at the beginning of the game and they are bad. You only find Good Guns toward the end of the game and they are better than all of the Bad Guns. Does it make any sense to have these two skills available at the beginning of the game? Would any non-glutton for punishment, knowing the availability of these weapons from the get-go, do anything other than tag Bad Guns right away and then later buy Good Guns?

This was fundamentally the problem with the Small Guns / Energy Weapons division in Fallout 1, except that first-time players typically had no idea (and no indication from the game) that you would find Small Guns early and EWs later -- and that EWs were generally just the better, late-game weapons. If you tagged EWs and walked out of Vault 13, it was going to be a long, long time before you found a weapon you could use. And if you insisted on finishing the game as a combat character with a Sniper Rifle instead of the Turbo Plasma Rifle, you were essentially handicapping yourself immensely.

If you want EWs to be inherently superior to Guns, push for future Fallout games to re-organize the skills so that EWs aren't a stand-alone skill, but a subset of weapons that span several skills.

 

[Sub-Human]

It's the developer's fault if players make bad decisions...

Read. The. Fucking. Manual.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't know, even if you disagree with the design opinions stated here, I'd prefer you avoid treating everyone else like an imbecile and quoting things that are already quoted both in the OP and the thread itself.

As for what he means by strategic failures, he essentially doesn't want the players to be able to screw up their builds. The original SPECIAL definitely needed an overhaul when it came to clarity, but since his way to achieve that in Van Buren was to cut with an axe, some people understandably didn't like it.

I honestly don't think there's anything bad in pointing out that Sawyer designs games with a broad audience in mind when he stated it himself.

 

[gumbarrel]

As for what he means by strategic failures, he essentially doesn't want the players to be able to screw up their builds.

Is that supposed to be bad, becasue I don't see how it is. As in, if some dude levels up medicine, trowing and speech, he should have actual, you know, USE for those skills, and those skills should give you different challenges and different rewards. Which is what he advocates.

Besides, in the case of the whole Small Guns and Enegry weapons thing, what he wants to do, is instead seperate them in to different skills, not just remove things.

Precise Weapons skill, Automatic Weapons skill, etc.

 

[Tagaziel]

Read. The. Fucking. Manual.

Why? Given the capacity for effectively communicating important strategic and tactical information in the game, I don't see why players should be required to read the manual. Most information is effectively communicated to the player in actual gameplay, making manuals obsolete. Compare the manual for eg. Tiberian Dawn and Tiberium Wars: most information that was contained in the 1995 manual (tutorial, background on the conflict, unit descriptions etc.) are included in the game and are much more effective at communicating information relevant to gameplay than a printed manual.

I don't know, even if you disagree with the design opinions stated here, I'd prefer you avoid treating everyone else like an imbecile and quoting things that are already quoted both in the OP and the thread itself.

As for what he means by strategic failures, he essentially doesn't want the players to be able to screw up their builds. The original SPECIAL definitely needed an overhaul when it came to clarity, but since his way to achieve that in Van Buren was to cut with an axe, some people understandably didn't like it.

I honestly don't think there's anything bad in pointing out that Sawyer designs games with a broad audience in mind when he stated it himself.

I believe quoting JES again was necessary, because many people herebehave like imbeciles and argue against points JES never raised or does not support.

Furthermore, what's wrong with creating games with a broad audience in mind? That's not a bad thing in itself. This design principle doesn't dictate lowering the difficulty or simplofying the game; it dictates making the game accessible: explaining mechanics and the setting clearly, so that even people completely new to the game can understand its workings just as well as veteran players. If a player is supposed to make a character in a specific setting, in a specific RPG system, then he ought to have enough information to make informed decisions and plan the character out. JES argues that strategic failures shouldn't be the result of a player badly planning a character because the developers failed to provide enough information and the player had to create his character blindly. Fallout is an example of how is it possible to unintentionally screw up your character:

6 combat skills: Small Guns, Big Guns, Energy Weapons, Unarmed, Melee Weapons, <s>Throwing</s>.
8 active skills: <s>First Aid, Doctor, Sneak,</s> Lockpick, Steal, <s>Traps,</s> Science, <s>Repair.</s>
4 passive skills: Speech, Barter, <s>Gambling, Outdoorsman.</s>

Making a crippled character build that includes crossed-out skills is entirely possible, because neither the game nor the manual explain that these are either useless skills or of little use during the game. Fallout 2 is marginally better in this aspect. New Vegas is pretty much the first truly functional SPECIAL implementation in an RPG setting. Tactics comes close, but it's hardly an RPG.

 

[Brother None]

That doesn't really negate the perfectly valid discussion people have been having in this thread, which is not about whether or not the uninformed useless skills are a problem, but why exactly they are a problem, how much of a problem they are, and what the solution is.

 

[Tagaziel]

I like the discussion, but I don't like misrepresenting JES' position. If anything, he consistently argues that gamers shouldn't be allowed to fail because the developers failed to give them enough information that eg. said skill is of limited usability. Not that players shouldn't be allowed to fail at all, but that they shouldn't be penalized for the developers' lack of attention.

 

[Sub-Human]

Most information is effectively communicated to the player in actual gameplay, making manuals obsolete.

Sorry for the misinterpretation, pal - but by manual I meant any type of tutorial, written, typed, recorded, you name it. Plus, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that information is passed on during gameplay - if so, why complain about players making bad character decisions because the developers didn't warn them?
They'll learn that what they chose was bad after playing the game.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well I did tried 2 times a new character in Fallout before I really had fun. But I am used with that since many RPGs worked that way. Or gamest at least.

Same with Jagged Alliance. I think part of a good game is the old "trial and error" part where you have at least a chance to find out how things work.

Chess would be something I think is a perfect example. Easy to learn. Hard to master. And I think RPGs should try to follow that. With some limitations of course.

 

[Tagaziel]

Sorry for the misinterpretation, pal - but by manual I meant any type of tutorial, written, typed, recorded, you name it. Plus, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that information is passed on during gameplay - if so, why complain about players making bad character decisions because the developers didn't warn them?
They'll learn that what they chose was bad after playing the game.

Information passed to the player during gameplay: integrated into the game via tutorials, tooltips, popups, hell, even audio feedback.

I don't think you quite grasp the point: JES makes a point that games should provide all the information necessary for making informed decisions.

Players failing because they made a bad decision due to the developers not providing them that information is, quite simply, bad.
Players failing because they made bad decisions after being given information that can, within reason, indicate it's going to be bad, is good.

Jagged Alliance and Jagged Alliance 2 are good games in this regard and allow for making informed decisions. All necessary game mechanics are laid out in the manual, while the game provides all the information necessary for making decisions eg. when hiring mercs from AIM: you are informed of their background, likes/dislikes, equipment, prices, stats and relevant special skills. Imagine having to choose mercs without information about their special skills, equipment or (worse) stats.

IMP in JA2 and JA2:UB is an example of both bad and good design (JES' opinion, to which I contribute): in the first game, you had to fill out a questionnaire to determine skills. Fun the first time through, but very hard to use in order to get the desired skills. UB rectified that.

In short, players shouldn't use trial and error to understand how a game works. Trial and error is fine for advanced mechanics, tricks and late game elements, but otherwise it hurts the game more than it adds to it.

 

[gumbarrel]

well I did tried 2 times a new character in Fallout before I really had fun. But I am used with that since many RPGs worked that way. Or gamest at least.

Well I did get a lot of bugs in Skyrim, but I am used to that since most Bethesda games work that way.

Chess would be something I think is a perfect example. Easy to learn. Hard to master.

In Chess you know what the hell all the pieces do, and all of them are useful in some way.

So I fail to see how strategy will go out of the window, if all skills in an RPG were useful in some meaningful way.

And by the way some of you are arguing, it seems that it would make sense if they removed all visible in-game stats and explanations. Players can just try shit out, right?

 

[Ilosar]

I agree with JES in many ways. What he did was a good example of streamlining; trim out the fat out of the system and make as much builds viable as possible. It wasen't the case in Fallout 1, unless you were a very good player who planned in advance and knew the game in depth (which is definitely not the audience one should target, especially when making big-budget titles). Fallout 2 was better, but still lacking; New vegas is the first Fallout game where I can take any combat skill, hell any set the skill and not feel like ''oh, jeez, x is just less useful than y, but I'm just tired of using y!''. That's what happened in the first two Fallouts for me; the perfect character was Small Guns, Speech, and Lockpick or Science. This is the most generally viable build, it will get you the most rewards out of the game by a long shot. Compare if a person took Big Guns, Repair and Firts Aid, which seems like a pretty logical build. But the player will have a much harder time than the previous build, with much less possibilities and rewards. Yes they can still complete the game. But it will be harder for no other reason that the game doesn't support his/her choice of skill.

Now, New Vegas was far from perfect. I didn't like having EW so weak-sauce at first (especially before the patch). And Speech is unarguably a more important skill than Survival if you value quests and story even a little. But the general balance was much, much better.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't know, the closest thing I've seen to misrepresenting and defending the original iteration of SPECIAL was a couple of users commenting on the fact that they felt FO1/2's progression was natural and Sub-Human throwing the word 'casual', so it hardly feels this kind of reaction personally.

And I don't know, again, I don't mind the system that we have right now for skills (although it could have been supported by more interesting perks, and the skill and stats themselves could have used having more of an impact on gameplay), but it's not necessarily the only way to solve FO1's lack of communication regarding combat skills.

Separate but connected manner: 'failing' with your character build, or strategical failure. The point is: should the player be able to complete the game with every build, even when the game strongly communicates from the outset that, e.g. the player should pick up some manner to resolve conflict? I feel there's merit to both sides, and the answer will depend on the target audience, hence why Sawyer usually leans to 'yes', while most people here, who are generally really passionate about old-school role-playing games (maybe nostalgic too, nothing bad with that), will probably lean towards 'no'. Game design is not exactly hard science anyway.

 

[Tagaziel]

And I don't know, again, I don't mind the system that we have right now for skills (although it could have been supported by more interesting perks, and the skill and stats themselves could have used having more of an impact on gameplay), but it's not necessarily the only way to solve FO1's lack of communication regarding combat skills.

Sawyer also proposed alternate methods, eg. having Energy Weapons open up at level 10 or when small guns and science reach a certain threshold.

Separate but connected manner: 'failing' with your character build, or strategical failure. The point is: should the player be able to complete the game with every build, even when the game strongly communicates from the outset that, e.g. the player should pick up some manner to resolve conflict? I feel there's merit to both sides, and the answer will depend on the target audience, hence why Sawyer usually leans to 'yes', while most people here, who are generally really passionate about old-school role-playing games (maybe nostalgic too, nothing bad with that), will probably lean towards 'no'. Game design is not exactly hard science anyway.

Uh, no, Sawyer doesn't lean towards every build being viable, he leans towards making every skill useful and communicating clearly what the world is about. If a player makes a build that ignores combat skills, while the game communicates that the world is a lawless wasteland where combat is commonplace, then it's an informed choice made by the player and the developer can't be blamed for not making gameplay as a non-fighter as easy as a fighter.

Again, strategic failures should be possible, but they should be the result of the player making informed bad decisions, not bad decisions as a result of lack of information.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well I did tried 2 times a new character in Fallout before I really had fun. But I am used with that since many RPGs worked that way. Or gamest at least.

Well I did get a lot of bugs in Skyrim, but I am used to that since most Bethesda games work that way.

Nice. Are we now so far of comparing apples and oranges ?

I was not talking about that and you know it. Dont insult your and my inteligence here. Bugs are a completely different thing.

A system has to give you room to "test". If a game does not allow you to fail then you will not feel progress nor will there be a reason to feel that you achieved anything. Many good games which are remembered for their tactical depth had this. Be it Jagged Alliance or Fallout. To find out which spells are effective and which not is half of the fun in Baldurs Gate for example.