Minigames that actually don't suck

[Morbus]

So, you have this:

Basically, hacking entails getting the right password. You’ll look at a scrambled file with a number of words in it. Each time you try a word, it’ll tell you how many letters were right in the word. STREP might go to TRACK which might go to AWAIT, for instance. Get it right, and the ‘bot is yours - get it wrong, and you’ll get locked out.

And this obviously sucks. Don't say otherwise because I am teh mastah and knows all...

Anyway, what I'm here to tell you is an idea for an hacking minigame that get three important aspects together, and makes them coexist peacefully:
[*]Fun
[*]Immersion
[*]Complete abstraction from player's skill

Yes, complete abstraction. My idea is little more than a derivate of the dreaded "magic bottom for hacking devices" (which was actually 7 + click in Fallout) that so many people seem to hate with passion, obviously because they are stupid and are not fans of pen and paper RPG's where you have to roll the dice and stuff. Yeah, I mean it. Now, back to my idea, it is actually very simple, but may eventually require a little tweaking:

Remember Vampire Bloodline's hacking "minigame"? It wasn't really a minigame, either you knew the password and you introduced it or you attempted the hack and the game would check your skill for the outcome (the absence of "luck factor" (id est diceroll) pleased me a lot, really, due to things I will not talk about here). But it wasn't really fun, although it surely was much better (IMO) than FO's hacking system. Instead of having the all-mighty magic bottom, you actually got to see your character doing the thing.

Bloodline's system had a very bad tradeback, however: if you knew the password yourself (id est through a walkthrough or something), the hacking skill was pretty much rendered useless. Now, to prevet this from happening, there is only one way possible: no pre-determined passwords, and the game generates them itself. My system uses that: procedurally generated passwords, you wouldn't be able to learn from a walkthrough. However, it's more similar to Fallout's system (the all-mighty bottom) than to Bloodline's, because there is a diceroll, preety much as in Fallout.

I will now explain in detail my idea:

You have the device that needs to be hacked and what you see is preety much what you see in Bloodline's computeres: the word "password:" followed by a blinking underscore. You have two ways of hacking the device, either you know the password already (only from an ingame source, since the password would be procedurally generated) or you attempt the hack. However, unlike Bloodlines, the way to hack the device wouldn't be to press CTRL+C, you'd actually have to TYPE a password (a random password, mind you, since you don't know it), and after you did, the game would roll the dice and check your skill to see it that password was correct. At higher levels, it would really feel as if YOU were an awesome hacker that guess the password right away!

One issue is left, however: what if you already knew the password for the said device (remember: always from an ingame source) and still wanted to attempt the hack? (pretty much as in Bloodlines where it was easier to attempt the hack than to remember a number of passwords found in papers and whatnot). I have found a solution, although it may not be very good (but surely is better than succeding an hack with a wrong password): the player wouldn't be able to attempt the hack if he already knew the password (as in Fallout, in some occasions), and the PC would automatically type in the correct password.

P.S.: Don't forget I said this system may need some tweaking. I really don't know much about hacking, so there may be some inconsistencies. Still, the root of the thing is there, you only have to work upon it if you like it.

So, what do you think?

 

[Vault 69er]

Not sure if I understand this.. so with a high skill, you could type in anything at all and it'd be correct?
Sorta like the Red Dwarf luck virus?

I don't think that'd work too well. Though I do think that Bloodlines' system combined with randomly generated passwords would be good.

 

[Morbus]

Not sure if I understand this.. so with a high skill, you could type in anything at all and it'd be correct?

Yeah, it's pretty much like that, although, of course, that would be at a REALLY high level only 200 points in the skill would actually make the chance of succeeding near 100%, and even then...

 

[cmagnus7980]

What's wrong with using a minigame based on the player's skill instead of the character's? I know that it doesn't keep with the PnP philosophy that so many hard core Fallout Fans adhere too, but this isn't 1997. This will be a new game in a new format, which is shaping up to be MUCH more interactive than the original was. It would fit in with the more interactive universe BethSoft is creating.

 

[janjetina]

Fallout is not an adventure game, it's a role-playing game. In a role-playing game, character skill determines possible outcomes of any given action.
Also, no game Bethesda has done in its existence can be described as interactive. Interactivity lies in multiple non-linear choices presented to the player, and in consequences of each choice reflected in the game's world, characters and player character himself. Fallout is still the best at this and no game comes even close although ten years have passed.

 

[cmagnus7980]

Just because a minigame would require the player to do more than click the "magic button" to perform an action doesn't mean it is not a role playing game. And interactivity has nothing to do with non-linear branching paths. Don't get me wrong, one of the best things about Fallout 1 and 2 was the fact that you could play both games in so many different ways, but that doesn't make it necessarily interactive. interactivity as it applies to video games means the actions of a gamer have direct application to the game they are playing. Is it more interactive to click on the skills button, click science, and then click on a computer console to hack it; or is it more interactive to walk up to the computer, access a command prompt and begin guessing the password required to hack into the system? You tell me. And try not to think small. Just because a game isn't isometric doesn't mean it is not capable of being a role playing game.

 

[Dougly]

I know that it doesn't keep with the PnP philosophy that so many hard core Fallout Fans adhere too, but this isn't 1997.

Okay.

I've been visiting NMA for years now. Never posted anything in the forums, but always browsed to keep up with what was going on. THIS was the comment that finally forced me over the edge. That made me decide I had to register, and start posting.

"This isn't 1997. This isn't 1997. This isn't 1997." I hear people repeating that over and over and over again. Why?

I fail to see what that has to do with the acceptability of mini games in Fallout. Has there been some kind of massive shift in the game market, one that now requires mini games in order for a product to be successful? Does the fact that it's 2007 somehow mean that copies of any game that doesn't have idiotic and distracting mini games will be destroyed in mass burnings throughout the country? If so, I guess someone should have told creators of Civilization IV. To heck with doing "research" the traditional, "boring" way! This is 2007! The only way for the game to be successful is to link scientific advancement to a "guide the lab rat through the maze" mini game!

If a game is good, people will buy it. Regardless of whether it has mini games, or "kwool" real time combat, or a first person view. The system for Fallout that existed in the previous two games - a computerized version of a pnp game - was very good, and quite capable of creating immersion, especially with good writing, an excellent game world, and a well thought out plot. A similar game - one that would have been faithful to the series - would have done well today. Because people buy a game that's good and entertaining.

The mere fact that it's 2007 isn't an argument for justifying ANY of the changes that Bethesda has made. At all.

 

[cmagnus7980]

I also have been a loyal devotee to NMA for many years, and have kept up with current fallout events by reading through the forums regularly. It has only been in the last few weeks that I have been prompted to voice my opinion on the status of the upcoming addition to the franchise.

For some reason, long time fans of these games seem to be stuck in a time warp. When Fallout 1 and 2 were originally released they were incredibly innovative and extremely immersive. I was sucked in right away and taken aback by the quality of the experience.

However, I have played MANY games since then, and I always wondered what the original Fallout Development team would have created if they had access to newer and more advanced tools at their disposal. And I am sure that THOUSANDS of over loyal Fallout fans have thought the same thing...

Now, why is it that there is this small, but fanatical, group of fans who for some reason think that turn base, 2D, sprite based, isometric games are the end all be all gaming experience? Why are they all so afraid to let someone take the best aspects of the Fallout Universe (i.e. the style, and feel of the game, NOT the way combat is initiated or a door is unlocked) and infuse them with newer and more advanced graphics and playing styles?

Have you not played anything else since 1997 that inspired you or captured your interest in some way? Are you so afraid to take a risk and try something new that you would pass up on what looks to be the most innovative game made that has been created in the last couple of years because you are stuck on not wanting to play a minigame?

(BTW, you aren't still wearing the same paints or driving the same car you did back in 1997 are you? You did try SOMETHING new right?)

 

[Sorrow]

Are you some kind of LARPing pervert or something?

 

[Vault 69er]

<waffle>

Blah blah blah. Somebody else who apparently doesn't know Daggerfall predates Fallout.
How's that for newer and more advanced play styles?

The only ones who are afraid of trying something new are Bethesda. They're stuck in the mother of all ruts and people like you will run around like headless chickens justifying that by calling what they do "new" and "innovative".

 

[Sander]

However, I have played MANY games since then, and I always wondered what the original Fallout Development team would have created if they had access to newer and more advanced tools at their disposal.

Exactly the same thing.

Now, why is it that there is this small, but fanatical, group of fans who for some reason think that turn base, 2D, sprite based, isometric games are the end all be all gaming experience?

Straw man. We don't claim that a 2d sprite-based game is what Fallout has to be, there are only a few people who have qualms with Fallout being 3D.
Also, we've never ever claimed that this was the end all be all to gaming. We've only claimed that this is what*Fallout* needs, not what every single game in existence needs.

Why are they all so afraid to let someone take the best aspects of the Fallout Universe (i.e. the style, and feel of the game, NOT the way combat is initiated or a door is unlocked) and infuse them with newer and more advanced graphics and playing styles?

So you're telling us that we can't decide what is really Fallout and what isn't, but *you* can decide? What gives you the right to tell us we're completely wrong, but that your arbitrary choice is the right one?

Have you not played anything else since 1997 that inspired you or captured your interest in some way? Are you so afraid to take a risk and try something new that you would pass up on what looks to be the most innovative game made that has been created in the last couple of years because you are stuck on not wanting to play a minigame?

Oh, right, I forgot, innovation is the same as a good game.
Also, care to explain how, exactly, this is innovative? They've already done the first-person, real-time role-playing deal with minigames, and there's absolutely nothing innovative about real-time with pause either.
In fact, one would say that an isometric, turn-based game would be highly innovative in today's market.

FYI, I love to play a lot of different games. But what I like in different games has absolutely nothing to do with what I like in Fallout, and hence expect from a Fallout sequel.

 

[RPGenius]

When Fallout 1 and 2 were originally released they were incredibly innovative and extremely immersive.

When F01 was released it was something new and different. Fallout 2 used basically the same system with a bit of tweaking. It was nothing new then, but was still very exciting, and very well recieved. NOTE: Product does not need to be "innovative" to be good and appeal to fans.

I always wondered what the original Fallout Development team would have created if they had access to newer and more advanced tools at their disposal.

Let me answer this for you: An isometric CRPG that had strong, obvious PnP elements. Fallout was not made that way due to restrictions, but rather because it was what fitted best for the game.

And I am sure that THOUSANDS of over loyal Fallout fans have thought the same thing...

And I'm sure you'll have difficulty finidng someone to agree with you.

Now, why is it that there is this small, but fanatical, group of fans

Ah yes, now I see your point clearly. THOUSANDS of fans would agree with you, but the largest fallout fan community are a small group? Just so you know, there's more than thousands registered on this site, making me wonder what your definition of large is.

who for some reason think that turn base, 2D, sprite based, isometric games are the end all be all gaming experience?

No. They are however a key point to the fallout universe. Go to the general gaming forum. When you find the majority talking about how "STALKER was cool and all, but man, imagine if it was iso" you can say that. Until then, you'll just look like a fool for saying unsupported things like that.

Why are they all so afraid to let someone take the best aspects of the Fallout Universe (i.e. the style, and feel of the game, NOT the way combat is initiated or a door is unlocked) and infuse them with newer and more advanced graphics and playing styles?

Becuase many of the newer graphics and playing styles compromise the key elements of Fallout. Over the years, there has been less focus on character development, dialogue and making characters interesting and individual, rather than just a totally 2 dimensional character. And attention to the setting and the critters that live within it has always been one of the things I've really loved about Fallout.

Have you not played anything else since 1997 that inspired you or captured your interest in some way?

You know, I'm a fan of wrestling games. I don't however wish that Fallout had some kind of grappling system. I've somehow managed to work out that it makes sense for each genre to have it's own features. Traditional RPGs on a computer platform need to feel like they're still based off PnP.

Are you so afraid to take a risk and try something new that you would pass up on what looks to be the most innovative game made

Most innovative game? You're basing this of what? A trailer and some interviews with Todd 'n' Pete? Wow, you're easy to please.

because you are stuck on not wanting to play a minigame?

Right. Go pick up ANY PnP system. Now find me a minigame. No luck? Right. RPGs are Role Playing games. The great thing is that what the player's good at doesn't matter. Becuase the player is playing the character of someone else. True RPGs are escapism at their finest. You are whoever you want to be, based on in game decisions. Mini-games destroy that immersion. Because by relying on the players ability, the player is reminded that they are not their character, hence defeating the whole purpose.

 

[Sorrow]

You know, I'm a fan of wrestling games. I don't however wish that Fallout had some kind of grappling system. I've somehow managed to work out that it makes sense for each genre to have it's own features. Traditional RPGs on a computer platform need to feel like they're still based off PnP.

Err...
A bad example, a lot of PnP RPGs has rules for grappling.

 

[Morbus]

What's wrong with using a minigame based on the player's skill instead of the character's? I know that it doesn't keep with the PnP philosophy that so many hard core Fallout Fans adhere too, but this isn't 1997. This will be a new game in a new format, which is shaping up to be MUCH more interactive than the original was. It would fit in with the more interactive universe BethSoft is creating.

Hush friend, I was talking about serious things, not interactive fun.

Also, no game Bethesda has done in its existence can be described as interactive. Interactivity lies in multiple non-linear choices presented to the player, and in consequences of each choice reflected in the game's world, characters and player character himself. Fallout is still the best at this and no game comes even close although ten years have passed.

From what I've been told, some games already surpassed fallout in most aspects, but I haven't played them yet. They are indie, of course, mainstream crap doesn't care to evolve.

Just because a minigame would require the player to do more than click the "magic button" to perform an action doesn't mean it is not a role playing game.

Ahem... that's what I was saying. "My" game doesn't have a magic buttom. That was my idea, did you read it? Because I actually don't think you did, you stopped right on the spot where I say minigames that require player skill are stupid.

raditional RPGs on a computer platform need to feel like they're still based off PnP.

Actually, I don't agree anymore CRPG should look up to PnP mechanics. After all, PnP has limitations and CRPG's should care about those limitations. HOWEVER, fallout HAS TO look up to those limitations, because that's fallout.

Anyway, diceroll is something that I don't like very much in general RPG's. In Fallout i do.

 

[cmagnus7980]

Wow.....where do I start?

Blah blah blah. Somebody else who apparently doesn't know Daggerfall predates Fallout.

So? Daggerfall doesn't have anything to do with Fallout, other than the fact that Bethesda created it. It is First Person Perspective, and set in the elder scrolls universe.

So you're telling us that we can't decide what is really Fallout and what isn't, but *you* can decide? What gives you the right to tell us we're completely wrong, but that your arbitrary choice is the right one?

I am not deciding anything. Bethesda is. All I am saying is why don't you give them a chance to release the game and see if they do the franchise justice before passing judgement. If they butcher the game, then rip their throats out. It is a little premature to do it now, isn't it?

Becuase many of the newer graphics and playing styles compromise the key elements of Fallout. Over the years, there has been less focus on character development, dialogue and making characters interesting and individual, rather than just a totally 2 dimensional character. And attention to the setting and the critters that live within it has always been one of the things I've really loved about Fallout.

Why do good graphics and a more interactive play style have to compromise the key elements of Fallout? Bethesda has been working on this game for several years. They have received some deserved criticism for the dialogue and and lack of consequences in Oblivion, and hopefully they will apply those lessons to Fallout 3. If not they will pay the consequences. Again, all I am saying is give the game a chance before you rip it to shreds.

And Morbus, I apologize for getting off topic. I did read your post and agree with you for the most part. One of the things I really liked about Oblivion was that a lot of the actions your character performed required more than just clicking on a button and letting a dice roll decide it's susuccess High stats increased the chances for susuccessut weren't the sole deciding factor. It made me feel like I really was my character when I had to physically use a lockpick to move the tumblers in a lock. That was genius. If they are smart about the way minigames are presented it could add a new dimension to Fallout 3 will really make you feel like you are a Vault Dweller.

And in closing, I know I will be bashed for saying this, but I think that this community should give the game a chance BEFORE they say it sucks. Once it is released, if it sucks by all means post your opinion as often as you can, Bethesda will deserve criticism if they produce a crap title. But they just might make a game that surpasses the originals. We won't know until fall 2008.

 

[Vault 69er]

So? Daggerfall doesn't have anything to do with Fallout, other than the fact that Bethesda created it. It is First Person Perspective, and set in the elder scrolls universe.

And is therefore not something new for Bethesda. They do first person action RPGs. That's all they do. That's all they've ever done.
We're not afraid of new things. They are.

 

[Sander]

So? Daggerfall doesn't have anything to do with Fallout, other than the fact that Bethesda created it. It is First Person Perspective, and set in the elder scrolls universe.

Exactly. It's in the first-person view. Meaning that *first-person perrspective had been used in RPGs before Fallout was made*. Completely invalidating your 'yeah but now it's all better and fpp can be done!!' argument.

I am not deciding anything.

Liar. You explicitly claimed that the best thing about Fallout was the setting and that the rest doesn't matter whatsoever.

Bethesda is. All I am saying is why don't you give them a chance to release the game and see if they do the franchise justice before passing judgement. If they butcher the game, then rip their throats out. It is a little premature to do it now, isn't it?

Oh, yeah, because all of the previews, screenshots and interviews haven't shown us anything at all.

Why do good graphics and a more interactive play style have to compromise the key elements of Fallout?

Straw man. No one claimed either of those things, and you're falsely equating a first-person view with good graphics.
Also, what the fuck do you mean by 'more interactive play style'?

Bethesda has been working on this game for several years. They have received some deserved criticism for the dialogue and and lack of consequences in Oblivion, and hopefully they will apply those lessons to Fallout 3. If not they will pay the consequences. Again, all I am saying is give the game a chance before you rip it to shreds.

And Morbus, I apologize for getting off topic. I did read your post and agree with you for the most part. One of the things I really liked about Oblivion was that a lot of the actions your character performed required more than just clicking on a button and letting a dice roll decide it's susuccess High stats increased the chances for susuccessut weren't the sole deciding factor. It made me feel like I really was my character when I had to physically use a lockpick to move the tumblers in a lock. That was genius. If they are smart about the way minigames are presented it could add a new dimension to Fallout 3 will really make you feel like you are a Vault Dweller.

No, the mini-games are absolutely retarded for a Fallout game. Simply because it's a role-playing game: your characters success rate should *not* be determined by player reflexes and skill whatsoever

And in closing, I know I will be bashed for saying this, but I think that this community should give the game a chance BEFORE they say it sucks. Once it is released, if it sucks by all means post your opinion as often as you can, Bethesda will deserve criticism if they produce a crap title. But they just might make a game that surpasses the originals. We won't know until fall 2008.

Yes we will. We know now. In fact, All of the previews have given us a ton of info so far, to claim that we don't know anything is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[janjetina]

Just because a minigame would require the player to do more than click the "magic button" to perform an action doesn't mean it is not a role playing game. And interactivity has nothing to do with non-linear branching paths. Don't get me wrong, one of the best things about Fallout 1 and 2 was the fact that you could play both games in so many different ways, but that doesn't make it necessarily interactive. interactivity as it applies to video games means the actions of a gamer have direct application to the game they are playing. Is it more interactive to click on the skills button, click science, and then click on a computer console to hack it; or is it more interactive to walk up to the computer, access a command prompt and begin guessing the password required to hack into the system?

Actually, interactivity, by its definition, has got to do with action and reaction, and choice and consequence are a perfect example of that. You're focusing solely on the "action" part, but I think the essential part of an interactive world is that the world reacts and changes with your actions. A "minigame" might be a good addition, if consistent within the game world (hence only "intellectual" type minigames would make sense, opposed to "physical" i.e. twitch minigames).

For example, there are many DnD based games where you get to solve riddles. Most of them take up the adventure approach - a character asks you a riddle and you get a multiple choice question which you answer according to your player skill.

An RPG approach would be following: you would be able to answer correctly only if your appropriate stats (Intelligence e.g.), are high enough. The "best" RPG approach is where your stats determine whether you're able to answer correctly at all (i.e. if you get the correct choice or an alternative way to weasel out the riddler), but making the right choice still depends on the player skill. That is, a good RPG has adventure elements on top of RPG mechanics.

If you make your hacking minigame trigger differently for the characters of different skill (Science), where a low Science character could only take a wild guess at a password, and a high Science character would get a more elaborate hacking "minigame" depending on the player skill, than fine. Additional content is always welcome. But if an INT<4 character is able to hack a computer through a minigame, that will not be RPG, but an adventure game.

To expand on a notion of an "interactive" game, the computer and the environment would need to a - contain some prerequisites to be hacked (e.g. fully functional power supply and interface, base not on alert, getting a physical access to the terminal etc.) and b - respond to a successful and failed hacking attempt accordingly. I feel that type of interaction is basic, and a hacking "minigame" is just sugar on top.

 

[Dougly]

I think that this community should give the game a chance BEFORE they say it sucks.

Actually, I did. Although I wasn't posting at the time, when there was a lot of negativity on here about Bethesda buying the rights to make a new Fallout game, I was willing to hold my skepticisim and give them a chance.

Then, the previews came out a few weeks ago. And all the negativity and fears I had been hoping were misplaced seemed to be validated.

Games cost quite a bit of money nowadays. I'm not going to sink the cash into something that isn't what I was looking forward to. I stopped buying games "just because they were released" years ago, back when I was in my early teens. I got burned by doing that way too often.

Oh... If it gets a decent rating in Computer Gaming World (at least three stars) and if I'm told that it's relatively bug free, I might eventually buy it. But I'll do so years after it's released, when I can pick it up for cheap in a bargain bin somewhere, or when I can legally buy a pre-owned copy so I can avoid giving Bethesda any of my own cash.

 

[cmagnus7980]

Whew...I can see why the team from Bethesda is so wary of posting on these forums. Sander, seriously take a valium, or some prozac or something. You can tell me that you think I am wrong all you want, but don't give your self a stroke.

At any rate we will see how well the game sells next year. And if you guys don't like it, I am sure you will prattle on about how you will "come toghether" and make your own Fallout sequel until Bethesda releases Fallout 4.

You guys have a wonderful day!