NMA: indirect Fallout 3 Q&A

[Briosafreak]

Hey Bartoneus, we mostly follow the description here when dealing with the combat modes concepts, so you know that what you say might be understood differently.

One positive thing from Bethesda is that they aren't talking of VATS as Turn based or a hybrid with turn based, which would be misleading.

For the rest the dialog part seems very positive, and the bobble heads importance seems to be greatly exaggerated in a few articles.

Still many other things need more discussion, I still think they aren't passing the message properly for the hardcore base, while succeeding with the casual crowd. And there are things I don't like and will talk about them later on my blog.

Still excellent coverage, it gave an alternative look on things that was needed, even if you like them way too much for it to be completely unbiased, but neither this place is, so that's ok.

 

[Sander]

A hybrid is not a choice between one or the other, it is both at the same time, but I get what you're saying. What are some examples of games with that choice? (I can't think of any)

Fallout: Tactics and Arcanum come to mind, although neither was executed particularly well.

Fallout 1 is a hybrid realtime / turnbased game where you don't get to choose.

I was talking about combat, though. Fallout's combat was purely turn-based.

Fallout 3 is an RPG that is in first person. If you're going to get into semantics it's not an FPS, because it's not a shooter. (it involves shooting but so does every Fallout game)

Yet Fallout 3 has many of the mechanics any shooter has, and few of the combat mechanics an RPG a la Fallout has. If anything, it is looking like a hybrid RPG/FPS so far, like Deus Ex or to a lesser extent Bloodlines.

Correct, if you demand a proper turn-based system for a game to be Fallout at all then you'll need to prepare for even bigger disappointments in life.

Apparently so, which seems somewhat odd because the combat was part of the core design of the original game.

I'm telling you it's not that exemplary of how the rest of the game is.

I can only hope you're right, but the nuclear catapult, laser-equipped ticket robots and a toaster that fires random items don't seem all that promising.

True, but it's exemplary of the attitude Bethesda has taken towards this game so far.

Also, people, for the love of god, please stop using 'cTRPG'. It's a contradictio in terminis. A game cannot be a computer Tabletop game. It's impossible. Call it a trueform of RPG or something similar, but this abbreviation is just silly, not to mention completely unknown outside of this forum since Sorrow made it up.

Oh, I thought it was computer turnbased RPG.

Heh, see what I mean?
Nope, Sorrow made it up to mean 'computer Tabletop Role-Playing Game'.

 

[Autoduel76]

And it will probably be one of the MOST twitch-based RPGs games that have been made.

I don't know if this was intentional hyperbole, or if you believe this, but this statement is very far from the truth.

F3 won't be as twitch-based as even any of the TES games, considering that there is a real-time with Pause component to it. As the writer of the article mentioned, they didn't even ever really do combat out of VATS anytime in that demo.

One of the most twitched based? Not even close, with all of the real time only RPGs and Action RPGs that have been released over the years. In fact it sounds like you can play F3 pretty much exclusively in VATS if you want, which, while you might find boring, makes it no more twitch based than any Real Time with Pause RPG.

 

[Sorrow]

Also, people, for the love of god, please stop using 'cTRPG'. It's a contradictio in terminis. A game cannot be a computer Tabletop game. It's impossible.

So, there are no games that recreate the tabletop roleplaying experience on computer?
There's no Fallout!

Call it a trueform of RPG

What is a true form of RPG? Are there also falseforms of RPG? The term isn't self explanatory and it doesn't provide any clues about the nature of gameplay. Is it solely text based or something?

 

[Sander]

I don't know if this was intentional hyperbole, or if you believe this, but this statement is very far from the truth.

It was somewhat hyperbole, but it's closer to the truth than you seem to believe.

F3 won't be as twitch-based as even any of the TES games, considering that there is a real-time with Pause component to it. As the writer of the article mentioned, they didn't even ever really do combat out of VATS anytime in that demo.

Ehm, I don't know which article you read, but it only states that he used it 'plenty' not solely.
In fact, you can*not* use solely VATS, since it has been stated time and again that when your action points run out, you are thrown out of VATS-mode and can't enter it until your AP regenerate.

One of the most twitched based? Not even close, with all of the real time only RPGs and Action RPGs that have been released over the years. In fact it sounds like you can play F3 pretty much exclusively in VATS if you want, which, while you might find boring, makes it no more twitch based than any Real Time with Pause RPG.

Yes it does. And here's why: in most real-time with pause RPGs (excluding KOTOR, I believe) you could give people all kinds of orders while having paused the game, including such odd things as walking somewhere. You had unlimited pauses and could pause whenever you want. This is a lot less twitch-based than Fallout 3's system, where you have a limited number of options in the pause (ie. aim and shoot) and a limited number of pauses.

Regardless, both systems still suck balls.

So, there are no games that recreate the tabletop roleplaying experience on computer?
There's no Fallout! Aiee!

Oh goodie, more word-twisting. I said that it is impossible to have a tabletop computer game, not that you can't attempt to recreate it on the computer. And why? Because 'tabletop' speaks very specifically about the medium.

And yes, 'true form' RPG or even P&P RPG is a lot more self-explanatory than the completely unknown acronym cTRPG, as Ausir so neatly demonstrated already.

 

[Autoduel76]

Ehm, I don't know which article you read, but it only states that he used it 'plenty' not solely.
In fact, you can*not* use solely VATS, since it has been stated time and again that when your action points run out, you are thrown out of VATS-mode and can't enter it until your AP regenerate.

I'm talking about this very article right here that the thread is about.

Shooting in RT slows down AP recharging. What about moving or other actions?

Not sure about this one, honestly in the demo Todd was pausing every time he really wanted to fight and only a few times did he have to run'n'gun in realtime and that seemed like just when a Mutant got the jump on him. He had modified the system a bit to help the demo along faster so I don't know how much of this was final mechanics and how much was for demonstration purposes.

 

[Seraphim Pwns U]

And yes, 'true form' RPG or even P&P RPG is a lot more self-explanatory than the completely unknown acronym cTRPG, as Ausir so neatly demonstrated already.

Give it time and exposure, and soon everyone will recognize it.

I think "true form RPG" might be highly subjective, based upon what someone determines a "true" RPG to be. Whereas I would feel a "true" RPG would be the AD&D Gold Box games (on the basis that its ruleset is defined by the AD&D 2.0 rules), another would feel Oblivion to be one as well (on the basis that it allows for more roleplaying than the Gold Box games).

And P&P RPG is strictly just that. The literal books, figurines, dice, DM screen, etc.

cTRPG is more fitting. It implies the recreation of a P&P RPG, on a computer. Or mayhaps even crTRPG (computer-recreated Tabletop RPG). Although that's clunkier than cTRPG.

 

[Sander]

I'm talking about this very article right here that the thread is about.

Shooting in RT slows down AP recharging. What about moving or other actions?

Not sure about this one, honestly in the demo Todd was pausing every time he really wanted to fight and only a few times did he have to run'n'gun in realtime and that seemed like just when a Mutant got the jump on him. He had modified the system a bit to help the demo along faster so I don't know how much of this was final mechanics and how much was for demonstration purposes.

Selective reading much? Read the *rest* of the sentence you bolded. Including the bit where it says that he *did* have to go into real-time several times.
Also, it clearly states that this may very well not be the final mechanics. What has been made very clear so far, is that you cannot pause until you have enough action points and action points regenerate with time. Hence, there is no infinite pausing.

Give it time and exposure, and soon everyone will recognize it.

It's a shitload easier to just explain what the point is, than to use this abbreviation which is unclear and still a contradictio in terminis.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 17:05 Post subject:
Sander wrote:

And yes, 'true form' RPG or even P&P RPG is a lot more self-explanatory than the completely unknown acronym cTRPG, as Ausir so neatly demonstrated already.


Give it time and exposure, and soon everyone will recognize it.

I think "true form RPG" might be highly subjective, based upon what someone determines a "true" RPG to be. Whereas I would feel a "true" RPG would be the AD&D Gold Box games (on the basis that its ruleset is defined by the AD&D 2.0 rules), another would feel Oblivion to be one as well (on the basis that it allows for more roleplaying than the Gold Box games).

True-form would logically be a game rooted in the P&P RPGs. You know, the ones that started the genre and hence are the original 'true' form?

cTRPG is more fitting. It implies the recreation of a P&P RPG, on a computer. Or mayhaps even crTRPG (computer-recreated Tabletop RPG). Although that's clunkier than cTRPG.

Both are clunky. Abbreviations and acronyms really do not help for clarity in most contexts specifically not in this one where any will interpret it as a typo and simply not know what he means. There's no point to trying to create a new acronym on your own.

 

[Sorrow]

And P&P RPG is strictly just that. The literal books, figurines, dice, DM screen, etc.

Actually, even PnP itself doesn't speak much about the nature of the gameplay - one can play PnP games based purely on narration, without table with miniatures or even without maps - which allows a wide range of representation ranging from FPP games, through topdown to exclusively text-based.

 

[Autoduel76]

Selective reading much? Read the *rest* of the sentence you bolded. Including the bit where it says that he *did* have to go into real-time several times.

"Several times"? Who is selective reading here? That's not even slective reading, that's incorrectly reading.

Not sure about this one, honestly in the demo Todd was pausing every time he really wanted to fight and only a few times did he have to run'n'gun in realtime and that seemed like just when a Mutant got the jump on him.

I simply said that the combat was mostly played in VATS. I don't see anything there to refute that.

Also, it clearly states that this may very well not be the final mechanics. What has been made very clear so far, is that you cannot pause until you have enough action points and action points regenerate with time. Hence, there is no infinite pausing.

Well, if we are going by what the game mechanics might change into then it "might" change into a fully real time with pause game too. I'm sure you were talking about the state of the game now, as am I.

But, I never said there was infinite pausing. That is beside the point. If I don't have to play every combat, entirely, in real time then it isn't "the most twitch", at all, since there are many games in which I do have to play entirely in real time and physically aim all of my attacks.

The description that the article gave is one with much more play in VATS, paused time, than in real time. Even if it was the other way around, it still wouldn't be "the most twitch". But, the way its described is not much more than a real time with pause game.

 

[Mori]

This is a cool Q&A that asked some questions the average journalist/ xbox gimp wouldn't. From the sound of it VATS is just a better way to plan out a battle. It's pretty hard to accurately shoot at multiple targets quickly, while being under attack yourself. I am glad that an isometric type view is in though. I like isometric for getting an idea of the area and how I'm going to have to plan the battle. First/third person is my choice for exploring, just due to the angle. It's harder to see the sun coming up from between ruined skyscrapers from isometric. Plus you can look up close at the scenery. But before I start to sound like I am being paid off by Bethesda moreso than I do usually, I'm wondering who thought it would be a good idea to fill an explosive with currency. Unless they go with normal money, like someone found a blown open bank vault in DC or something and put all the money into circulation. Sadly I'm fearing it'll be MYSTERY COOIIIINSS! again. Which was frankly a bit crap.

 

[whirlingdervish]

He meant a system where you can choose between Real-time and Turn-based.

A hybrid is not a choice between one or the other, it is both at the same time, but I get what you're saying. What are some examples of games with that choice? (I can't think of any)

I'm sure someone mentioned FO:T, but how about XCOM Apocalypse?


It sucked when compared to the first 2, but at least the devs tried to appease the fans of the series by making a completely TURN BASED option in addition to the jinky realtime system that they tried to implement to make some bucks from the RTS market.

It could be played entirely in TB, and the RT/TB switching was the least of that game's problems due to a very straight forward implementation..

In a way, it was very true to the original games, unlike how FO3 will be nothing at all like FO in terms of gameplay.


Unfortunately there was a problem with Xcom:Apoc that was similar to my major gripe about FO3 (or FINO3):

They completely screwed up the atmosphere by letting the artists of the new production group completely ignore all the artwork of the previous 2 games, and in turn they pretty much killed the series by making a game that was barely recognizeable as an XCOM game.

 

[Sorrow]

They completely screwed up the atmosphere by letting the artists of the new production group completely ignore all the artwork of the previous 2 games, and in turn they pretty much killed the series by making a game that was barely recognizeable as an XCOM game.

Except that there was an entirely different situation in X-Com 3: Apocalypse - the aesthetic changes were logically explained in game :
1. The X-Com 3 aliens are a completely different race.
2. The Mega Primus is in game, because the Earth atmosphere got polluted by the explosion of T'leth.
3. The game started 85 years after the first one.
4. Retrofuturistic utopian style was enforced by the government of Mega Primus.

What killed it as an X-Com game was drastically decreasing the weapon damages which robbed the game from most of suspension.
I suspect that it was done to appease the RTS crowd.
Also, X-Com 3 was released unfinished - it lacked some features like capturing vips, companies going bankrupt, etc.

 

[Tagaziel]

The CH poll on the inquisition article is pure ownage.

These are all real quotes, though I did blur out the f-bomb. I thought I’d share and let you decide if these are as crazy as I think they are, and which one is the craziest critique of a game that’s still over a year away (and one option if you think I’m out of line). Hey, maybe some of those people will come over here and leave some more gems. Or maybe, just maybe, a realistic, constructive dialogue will start up…

* "A groinless targeting game is no game at all." (9%, 31 Votes)
* "They didn't even got the right font. Or AT LEAST the right font color." (11%, 36 Votes)
* "I want child-killing, not that i'll do it, it's not fallout if there's no such possibility" (5%, 18 Votes)
* "You know you'll be surprise how many people want killable children." (3%, 9 Votes)
* "As if Oblivion wasn’t enough, you keep raping franchises huh?" (7%, 22 Votes)
* "what f@#k does it mean to pause the game to kill enemies and wait for action points to reload ? is this Fallout 3 or max payne ? " (6%, 19 Votes)
* "I really hope Todd chokes on one of his snacks of corpses and toilet water." (14%, 45 Votes)
* All of the above complaints seem reasonable... moron. (45%, 149 Votes)

Total Voters: 329

 

[stormcrow]

That was a good read. Hey its the third day in a row that I feel better about F3. VATS still seems pretty unclear. In fact the whole combat still feels unclear.
At least they seem to be progressing in the right direction dialogue wise.
Meg perhaps the game might be good. We'll probably only find out once we buy it or when they get proper PR people to explain all this stuff they should have told us from the start.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Except that there was an entirely different situation in X-Com 3: Apocalypse - the aesthetic changes were logically explained in game :
1. The X-Com 3 aliens are a completely different race.
2. The Mega Primus is in game, because the Earth atmosphere got polluted by the explosion of T'leth.
3. The game started 85 years after the first one.
4. Retrofuturistic utopian style was enforced by the government of Mega Primus.

What killed it as an X-Com game was drastically decreasing the weapon damages which robbed the game from most of suspension.
I suspect that it was done to appease the RTS crowd.
Also, X-Com 3 was released unfinished - it lacked some features like capturing vips, companies going bankrupt, etc.

all very good points!

it's good to know that there are still a couple XCOM fans around..


BTW, the poll above is hilarious.

 

[ivpiter]

Dialogue. Matt Miller caused a stir on this with his remark that "the tree is closer to Oblivion." So how does it look (visually, like Oblivion)? The PC has full lines or keywords? Any sign of long NPC replies? Any hint (probably too short a demo) of expansive branching dialogue?

This really tests my memory on the specifics of the demo shown, but I'll try my best to remember exactly. Looking back at Oblivion your choices in dialogue were things like "rumors, cathedral, Glarthir, etc." The visual look of dialogue is similar to Oblivion in how it zooms in on the NPC's face and where the text is displayed, but from the short bits we viewed it looks like PC respones will be phrases much like from Fallout 1, and typically it looked as if there were serious answers, angry answers, and funny answers all mixed in. The dialogue trees definitely looked like they had longer NPC replies also, and there was definitely a HINT of expansive / branching dialogue but really with the demo not enough was shown to say. From how Emil and Todd talked about it, I imagine the level of depth and detail shown throughout the demo expands to every part of the game.

I got a very good sense of "Fallout" from the dialogue shown, and strongly feel that this is one thing the people at Bethsoft are putting a lot of effort towards getting right.

Wow, a politician could hardly have done a better job of CYA then this "industry insider" did

So, it test's his memory to think of the dialogue, I can only think of a few rational explanations for this:
A. the reviewer didn't bother to read it
B. He didn't have time to read it b/c the operator, Todd, clicked though it a.s.a.p.
C. The dialogue was so uninspired that it left little to no impression on the reviewer.
D. He is saying exactly what Beth tells him to say so he continues to get "exclusive access"
E. A combination of the above factors...

I wonder why we've yet to see a screen shot of the dialogue options a PC will see...

 

[Bartoneus]

Wow, a politician could hardly have done a better job of CYA then this "industry insider" did

So, it test's his memory to think of the dialogue, I can only think of a few rational explanations for this:
A. the reviewer didn't bother to read it
B. He didn't have time to read it b/c the operator, Todd, clicked though it a.s.a.p.
C. The dialogue was so uninspired that it left little to no impression on the reviewer.
D. He is saying exactly what Beth tells him to say so he continues to get "exclusive access"
E. A combination of the above factors...

I wonder why we've yet to see a screen shot of the dialogue options a PC will see...

Is this person for real? I'm not an industry insider, and I don't think I've ever claimed to be. Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear in my response to Brother None, it tested my memory for both the demo AND of what dialogue in Oblivion was like. The reasoning for the demo is that we saw an hour's worth of play, after about a half hour of talk before hand, followed by over an hour and a half of Q&A, and you're asking me to remember exactly what the dialogue looked like that I saw in the game. Sorry, no eidetic memory here.

How's that for a rational explanation? More conspiracy theory please?

 

[whirlingdervish]

here's one:
In reality, the game sucked and they paid you a pretty penny to describe it, in a good light..

 

[Bartoneus]

here's one:
In reality, the game sucked and they paid you a pretty penny to describe it, in a good light..

Yea, I wish I were getting paid for this stuff, and you seem to wish for the game to suck.

On a different note, the one about X-com's and Fallout 3's concept art. Does anyone know where I can see the concept art for Fallout 1/2? I've found some for tactics and BoS but none for the originals.