NMA's Opinion On Vehicles

[Gizmojunk]

Even if procedurally generated, what would be the point of having those miles of fillers between relevant locations and points of interest ?

Specifically ~for the same reason Fallout does it. Notice the Gif in post #52. Fallout presents the gameworld as being the size of a US state; and while it has several major settlements [the points of interest], it also has ruined cities, and other locations that are abandoned, or that didn't survive the war. This minuscule program that runs in sixteen megabytes of ram [that's SHARED with the Windows OS] endeavors to generate the terrain underfoot at any point on the map that the PC takes a pause.

This then is the reason: If the game can generate suitable terrain on demand, then it can generate the location of any encounter in the wasteland ~on the fly. This means that while using the map-travel interface, that interface can then track the progress of the character on the overland map just as Fallout 1 & 2 did, just as the Indiana Jones films did; and when an encounter occurs, it can drop down to the specific spot on the map and create whatever landscape should be there as backdrop for the encounter. This is something that Fallout and Arcanum both did, but that FO3 cannot do. Arcanum could technically generate the the landscape of the continent from coast to cost; you could walk it in realtime ~if you spent two days sitting at your computer, playing the game; but that isn't the purpose of that functionality.

Imagine if FO3 had done this; had a 3D Skyrim style overland map, but that instead of guaranteed arrival on clicked destinations, the character began a trek across the wastes, indicated by a marker.

The PC spends days or weeks traveling through ~wasted land; having little to no encounters with anything significant, until they reach their destination... but the risk of an encounter is always present, and their own dumb luck might allow them to stumble past something of real value ~forgotten about out in the deep wastes. Interestingly enough, Wasteland 2 works like this [like Fallout, in the sense that good & bad encounters can happen on the trip, and when they do, it presents an interim map].

* As a side effect, a game that did this [and did it fast enough] could stream generated terrain past a driving vehicle in either first or third person view; basically [visually] like driving a Wart-Hog in Halo. Vehicle use need not mean forced driving though; that could just be an option.

* But importantly [IMO] either way... vehicles should represent a significant trade-off. Speed & carrying capacity, in exchange for lower encounter frequency; because you don't spot a half buried satchel bag filled with diamonds at 55 MPH.

* A third side effect could be that modders would then have the entire landmass to place their encounters, locations, and whole settlements.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

I think Fallout with the map size of, say, Just Cause 2 could be fucking awesome.

If the map was immersive yes. Just Cause 2 is huge but it's covered in the same looking villages for the most part.

That's just a suggestion, personally I don't want to consider FO3/4 as canon at all. But if anyone is building airship at the DC, BoS (or some remnants of US governmant/military) is the most likely one to have the tech and the need for that.

But even if they have the tech, they are extremely likely to stripped all useful resources from the neighbors like locus. If I am BoS, I would surely raid places like Rivet city and Megatown for parts like aluminum, nuclear reactor, steel and power cable...etc. I may have to even stripped-off many "dead" vaults for their nuclear fuel and electronics as well.

I think it's implied they stole Rivet City's reactor. It's stated they took a reactor from an old aircraft carrier and Rivet City's the only one we know of.

 

[naossano]

Fo1-Fo2 doesn't generate thousands of useless miles. It generates the location needed when something actually happen.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean the maps generated has to be small. It could still be sniper compatible.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Fo1-Fo2 doesn't generate thousands of useless miles. It generates the location needed when something actually happen.

Think about that for a minute.

...

...

I mentioned this all above, but to clarify, anyplace (anywhere on Fallout's map), gets terrain suitable to what the map shows should be there when visited; [visiting a location is not always optional, but it usually is]. Desert, Mountains, City Ruins, and even the Coastline is supported. Fallout's limitation is that they made only a few static maps to depict each terrain, but the assets are there, and they could probably have procedurally generated all of it on the fly if they didn't have the excruciating RAM and CPU speed limitations.
Fallout uses a sprite based tiled engine, that expects a Pentium 90MHz PC with 16 megs ram. The reason it chugs even today, is because it has to load all those sprites; and as we know, it's also the reason that many NPCs cannot use all of the available weapons in the game, because not all the sprites for those animations exist. All of these limitations are a non-issue in 3D, on a modern desktop.

With a 3D engine it's possible to instance the landscape assets to even greater extent, by varying the rotation and scale of the objects. The point is to be able to render any point (on the map); being able to do that gives the side-effect of being able to generate thousands of miles of the map.

That it's "useless" land isn't true, but is also irrelevant here, because no one is expected to ever actually walk through that expanse in realtime. The fact that they could is simply because it's possible for the engine render it; and with that option, it's possible to render it for a moving vehicle.

In practice, the procedural landscape would be generated only until the PC opened the map and picked a destination where they wanted to be. (That could be true if they were on foot, or using a vehicle; however, driving across the wastes, and rolling over any raiders or hostile animals encountered would seem to be possible, and probably fun.)

On the other hand, that doesn't mean the maps generated has to be small. It could still be sniper compatible.

It might work well for telescopic lenses; though it might need to save the seeds for that landscape, because they'll be running out there shortly after, and it should look the same. Conceivably, an engine could have a potentially vast [250,000 square mile ] generated gameworld, while only retaining those [seed] paths previously explored; and as such the outer wasteland [procedural content] would (or could) be different* for every install of the game, or even every new character created.

*Different terrain in-between the main settlements, which would probably need static locations unless the developers wanted to implement dynamic map directions from the NPCs.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Has a game ever done something like that?

this raises a good point... Why don't travelers use bikes? I mean it'd be bumpy as shit, but you'd get to your destination much faster.

Eh, not really. This really depends on the countryside. Try using your bike on something else than a well and nicely done road. It can be pretty tiresome.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Has a game ever done something like that?
Eh, not really. This really depends on the countryside. Try using your bike on something else than a well and nicely done road. It can be pretty tiresome.

Mountain Bikes help on rough terrain, where street bikes would be a real pain to use.
I once cycled 23 miles on a beach [using a street bike]. It was hard work, but it was better than walking*.

Spoiler

Which I had done previously, and didn't want to repeat.

 

[naossano]

Well, bike could have its use on small to medium distance and on emergency situations.

Let's say Gecko and Vault City are allies and Gecko has broken a piece of their reactor and have to turn off the reactor and avoid a meltdown. No electricity for both cities. Instead of walking for two days to Vault City to get the part, they could spend 3 hours on a bike get the part, come back and fix it. They would only spend like 8 hours instead of four days without electricity. It make sense if the distance is short and if they have an emergency.

I don't see the point to have, for instance, Vault city caravans use bike to go to New Reno and trade medecine for ammos.

 

[Hassknecht]

Has a game ever done something like that?

Daggerfall more or less worked like that, the towns were (mostly) fixed and the rest of the terrain as well as the dungeon interiors were procedurally generated. I don't know if the map was actually newly generated everytime a section was reloaded or if it was just generated at the start of the game, but in general it worked like that.

Eh, not really. This really depends on the countryside. Try using your bike on something else than a well and nicely done road. It can be pretty tiresome.

Works fine in the flat wastelands of Fallout I guess. I think I said it somewhere above, I'd like a map system where certain vehicles only work on certain types of terrain. None of that "Driving a Highwayman through valleys and mountains" nonsense.

 

[naossano]

Anyway, technicalities aside, there is next to no point on actually showing all those billions of miles, even if procedurally generated, it means tons of ressources for non-events, while removing ressources from actual locations, regardless of how much ressources we are talking about.

But that is an issue with continuous gameworld or *open-world* (don't like that word) in general. So much is wasted on filler and so few is dedicated to relevant content. And filler is not what we come looking when playing an RPG, especially a Fallout game.

 

[Hassknecht]

Anyway, technicalities aside, there is next to no point on actually showing all those billions of miles, even if procedurally generated, it means tons of ressources for non-events, while removing ressources from actual locations, regardless of how much ressources we are talking about.

But that is an issue with continuous gameworld or *open-world* (don't like that word) in general. So much is wasted on filler and so few is dedicated to relevant content. And filler is not what we come looking when playing an RPG, especially a Fallout game.

I tend to disagree. All that filler content can be done with little supervision by the technical folks without interfering with the relevant work by the artists and designers. And it would be a huge benefit to the immersion, and something fresh to the stale "open world" genre where you can usually see the next town right on the horizon at latest.
In fact, I think it might hog fewer resources since the vast majority of the terrain doesn't really have to be designed, whereas in current games the entire map has to be done mostly by hand. Although I guess some of the filler terrain is already being made by procedural generation. Either way, I don't think it will be harder on any resources or take too much time from focusing on the relevant areas. Although it does make it harder to make the relevant areas appear to scale; like the Boneyard, it couldn't just stand for itself, not without the rest of LA around it.

Note that this is only relevant for first- or third-person games; isometric games don't need to bother.

 

[naossano]

Bigger map (or a secondary location that provide a good viewpoint from the distant town) could me made without making 100% of the miles separating the locations.
Those filler don't add much to the experience, and cause an incredibly huge waste of the player time. You play the game to have fun, experience some rich encounters, interact with the world and its characters. There is nothing interesting in all that time wasted in walking those extra miles. (in extremely huge amount)

When you watch the good, the bad and the ugly, the emphasis is made when something happens, or something is about to happen or there is something relevant to notice for a later event, or there is characterization, or tension, or themes, or something. You spend some three relevant hours watching well-crafter stuff. You don't spend 3 weeks watching the movie because there is a need to see the characters doing all the travel on horse. You don't spend an entire day watching Tuco walk alone on the desert. You don't watch sequence of 8 hours straight of the characters sleeping. You don't see them crap and pee and drink and eat and sadle their horses. Because those events aren't relevant unless something unique actually happen.

And the audience isn't composed of people that have infinite life expectancy. Time is something we have in quite finite ammount and it should be spared by having the appropriate amount of well-crafted content, not a billion of procedurally generated generic filler content that just take time, but bring nothing to the table. That open-world model seems to be the very opposite of efficiency.

 

[Hassknecht]

Bigger map could me made without making 100% on the miles separating the locations.
Those filler don't add much to the experience, and cause an incredibly huge waste of the player time. You play the game to have fun, experience some rich encounters, interact with the world and its characters. There is nothing interesting in all that time wasted in walking those extra miles. (in extremely huge amount)

When you watch the good, the bad and the ugly, the emphasis is made when something happens, or something is about to happen or there is something relevant to notice for a later event, or there is characterization, or tension, or themes, or something. You spend some three relevant hours watching well-crafter stuff. You don't spend 3 weeks watching the movie because there is a need to see the characters doing all the travel on horse. You don't spend an entire day watching Tuco walk alone on the desert. You don't watch sequence of 8 hours straight of the characters sleeping. You don't see them crap and pee and drink and eat and sadle their horses. Because those events aren't relevant unless something unique actually happen.

And the audience isn't composed of people that have infinite life expectancy. Time is something we have in quite finite ammount and it should be spared by having the appropriate amount of well-crafted content, not a billion of procedurally generated filler content that just take time, but bring nothing to the table. That open-world model is the very opposite of efficiency.

*sigh*
Did you read any of the above posts talking about how a map-travel-system would be implemented on such a large map? There won't be any difference to how the map felt in Fallout 1 or 2, except that it could (and I repeat COULD) be all travelled through in real time, which is not necessary or recommended at all, since map travel is possible. At random encounters the game puts you back down to the normal game perspective, just like Fallout 1, and instead of going down to a local small map, well, you're just down in the world again, and after the encounter (fight or flight or whatever) you can access the world map again.
The real-sized map is ONLY there for the atmosphere so you don't stumble over large towns after every five minutes of walking.

 

[naossano]

Even with low dev input, that involved dev work and computer process to generate all that for not any real benefit. (unless the whole point of the game is to see those fillers. That is a genre on its own)

 

[Gizmojunk]

(unless the whole point of the game is to see those fillers.)

In as way it is. A common put-down of Fallout, was that it didn't actually have a massive world map; just a few static maps that are used for every location outside of town. Had they generated maps on the fly in Fallout, every wasteland location could have been unique. Had FO3 done the same, there might have been no hard edge to the maps.

When I mentioned 'generating maps' procedurally, I was thinking it would mean a heightmap texture, and parameterized placement of existing objects; the models that FO3's present landscape is already made from. And with the [next patch of] land made, it could be salted with a few random encounters ~or not; and/or including Fallout's Special Encounters*. I wasn't actually considering software generated mesh models; parameterized rocks and such. The landscape needn't be that unique. But even that is possible.

Spoiler: Have a look at CityEngine:

Just imaging if the entire wasteland in FO3 had been littered with ruined cities like these; Some populated with raiders, or vault survivors, mutants, or just totally abandoned.

(* At one time, I had thought that it might be interesting if those encounters only showed up in first & third person, for having actually stumbled across them in realtime. )

 

[Hassknecht]

Even with low dev input, that involved dev work and computer process to generate all that for not any real benefit. (unless the whole point of the game is to see those fillers. That is a genre on its own)

It's not the whole point of the game, but it's an atmospheric element. To create a more immersive world that doesn't break your suspension of disbelief when you walk across the entire map within 15 minutes in real time and stumble upon settlements that never heard of each other every few meters.
And for that I think it's important, because if we are going to get more of these first/third person perspective Fallout games I'd prefer this approach over the stale Bethesda-style of "everything's right at the horizon all the time" mapmaking.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I'm curious why we haven't had a fallout with fish in it.

Fallout 1 (2?) had an event at the coast, where a guy talks about a giant catfish which keeps scaring away the fish he wants to catch.

The ocean would be mostly non-radioactive, due to its sheer size and amount of life in it, and fish are a very nutritious form of food.

 

[Risewild]

I'm curious why we haven't had a fallout with fish in it.

Fallout 1 (2?) had an event at the coast, where a guy talks about a giant catfish which keeps scaring away the fish he wants to catch.

The ocean would be mostly non-radioactive, due to its sheer size and amount of life in it, and fish are a very nutritious form of food.

The Mirelurks ate them all.

About traveling on a overmap thing, the team of Fallout the Story came up with a way of doing something that resembles the classic Fallout games traveling, on Fallout New Vegas:

Check around 4:36.

 

[Kadscaner]

I'm curious why we haven't had a fallout with fish in it.

Fallout 1 (2?) had an event at the coast, where a guy talks about a giant catfish which keeps scaring away the fish he wants to catch.

The ocean would be mostly non-radioactive, due to its sheer size and amount of life in it, and fish are a very nutritious form of food.

There's fish in Lake Mead and in Zion Canyon in New Vegas.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

There's fish in Lake Mead and in Zion Canyon in New Vegas.

Ahh yes, I quite remember that!

Wow...

To think...

NV remembered the originals had mention of fish too...

I don't remember any in 3...But I might be wrong.

 

[Wasteland Wanderer]

I like the idea if a procedurally generated map with it being like Fallout 1/2 but I don't think it should have the same regular travel. I think more of mad Max Fury Road the game where you could just drive wherever you want. I think the fast travel should be kinda like Daggerfall though