Nonsensical Elements in Fallout 3
- Thread starter Dakilleux
- Start date
That is the core principle behind the kind of RPG Fallout was originaly (cRPG or PnP emulution what ever you like more). That your stats matter. That is why you had requirements for certain weapons and I am glad they are luckily back in Fallout Vegas.
I dont want to argue if Bethesdas approach is better or worse to how Fallout 1 was done. But its a different way to handle things. Complaining about the strength or inteligence in Fallout 1 determining your success is like complaining that a monk in DnD cant use the sword of pritiness a paladin is wielding around. You choose a role and the game with its limitations is forcing you to stay in that role. If the only reason to play a cleric is to sumon undead you could simply forget about it anyway. That is the reason why for example in DnD paladins loose all the conection to their deity and all skills related to it as Paladin and become a usual fighter if they dont "act" like Paladins anymore (there is also the "fallen" Paladin but thast a whole different story), like for example a paladin of helm would never refuse to protect.
Of course a game like Oblivion or if you want Gothic have not such a background and they dont need it. They are "open world" games. They aim for a totally different group of role players and give you a completely different experience where its more about your skills because its you who hits the sword or blocks the attack. The effectivnes might still be dependand on your level. But I think you know what I mean.
When you or others say they dont like it how your success in the game is determined by throwing some dices around thats alright and everyone should respect that. But trying to tell us that such things like strength requiremts have no relevance in a role playing game is not very inteligent.
I dont want to argue if Bethesdas approach is better or worse to how Fallout 1 was done. But its a different way to handle things. Complaining about the strength or inteligence in Fallout 1 determining your success is like complaining that a monk in DnD cant use the sword of pritiness a paladin is wielding around. You choose a role and the game with its limitations is forcing you to stay in that role. If the only reason to play a cleric is to sumon undead you could simply forget about it anyway. That is the reason why for example in DnD paladins loose all the conection to their deity and all skills related to it as Paladin and become a usual fighter if they dont "act" like Paladins anymore (there is also the "fallen" Paladin but thast a whole different story), like for example a paladin of helm would never refuse to protect.
Of course a game like Oblivion or if you want Gothic have not such a background and they dont need it. They are "open world" games. They aim for a totally different group of role players and give you a completely different experience where its more about your skills because its you who hits the sword or blocks the attack. The effectivnes might still be dependand on your level. But I think you know what I mean.
When you or others say they dont like it how your success in the game is determined by throwing some dices around thats alright and everyone should respect that. But trying to tell us that such things like strength requiremts have no relevance in a role playing game is not very inteligent.
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
*sigh*
You still don't understand? We know that isn't your point but you still don't seem to grasp that weightless ammo criplles the importance of the carry weight statistic. You don't use ammo for barter? Fine, but you can still go around with 1.000 missiles with a ST of 1 if you want, which otherwise would need an aimed build. And creating a build aimed to the kind of experience you want to role-play and stick to that is the point of this kind of games.
tnu said:
Why does a Mac 10 need to have weight just because a Uzi does?
The keyword is "verisimilitude", not "realism".
verisimilitude. I was never able to figure out exactly what that meaznt and entaild i've looked it up before and the defenition never seamed very clear.. and ofcorse can you even FIDN that many missiles? also is it so bad to have the ABILITY to max out yoru stats and be stuck to one thing? what if you WANT to eventually reach perfection?
Argh, there is a spell checker.
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
Can you say "Game Balance"?tnu said:
When I hear balance its usually brings up the association of make the palyer never able to become powerful or accomplish anything in stead prepetually hold them back and make everything as hard as possible for them with every mechanic working agaisnt the player" Thats normally what I gather from the context anyway. what does that have to do with the meaning of verisimilitude?
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
tnu said:
Makenshi
Ahoy, ye salty dogs!
Per said:
Can't you strike him for writting like that? If you can, do it hard, for us both...
tnu said:
Can you say "Role Playing"?
instead of throwign game terms at me could someone ju st define the kriffign word? Sure roleplaying is nice but to some players putting an arbitrary limit on what the player can reach is a pain. some people LIKE to max everythign and eventually become a demigod of the setting. I liked the Almost Perfect perk because it gave me somthign to reach for.this big utlamate reward for reaching Level 30
I think it would be easier to ask what kind of "RPG" you prefer. It seems to me that you have a specific taste [~Munchkin] which is different to what a few here like, which is ok of course. But dont tell us that strength requiremts or weight for amunition is wrong. Particularly when in the case like Vegas for example you have a chanc to even tourn it off. We can explain you our point but we can not understand it for you
~ In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers and to immature players in general.
Fallout 1 or Arcanum or Planescape or Baldurs Gate and a few more have limitations to give you characters. A reason for playing a specific set. Thats why you have limitations. A monk will not use swords not because he "cant"because obviously everyone can hold and use a sword but because its against his ethics or role as a monk. The same reason why he doesnt use any armor. You are supposed to play this kind of role. If you want not to bother your self with heavy weight then play a character with huge strength but dont expect him to be a combination of Arnold Schwarzeneger, John F Kennedy and Einstein. This is the approach of games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 where there is no or just lidle difference in characters.
Its like when people complain that Fallout 1 or 2 have not imersive visuals because they play in a top down perspective as like Fallout ever wanted to be "immersive" in the first place. With a Top down perspective the experience is more in a direction that you "guid" a character you "build". In some first person game like Fallout 3 you are supposed to BE the character not guide him but assume you are the person you created. For example it should be no problem for a very skiny and weak person to play in a role playing game a barbarian with muscles of steel and people without academic education playing a genius character with high knowledge in mathematics for example. The game decides if you are succesfull or not (the so called dicre roling) and not your skills with shooters or what ever. I know its a bit unclear particularly as modern games tend not to use any real category anymore and with terms that even could count Doom or Oblivion as RPG when they are action and/or adventure games. That people have a different preference is alright and neither you nor others have to explain why they like what they like. But you can not expect from us to accept it that others want to explain us why their preference is the best one and why we should like that as well.
~ In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers and to immature players in general.
Fallout 1 or Arcanum or Planescape or Baldurs Gate and a few more have limitations to give you characters. A reason for playing a specific set. Thats why you have limitations. A monk will not use swords not because he "cant"because obviously everyone can hold and use a sword but because its against his ethics or role as a monk. The same reason why he doesnt use any armor. You are supposed to play this kind of role. If you want not to bother your self with heavy weight then play a character with huge strength but dont expect him to be a combination of Arnold Schwarzeneger, John F Kennedy and Einstein. This is the approach of games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 where there is no or just lidle difference in characters.
Its like when people complain that Fallout 1 or 2 have not imersive visuals because they play in a top down perspective as like Fallout ever wanted to be "immersive" in the first place. With a Top down perspective the experience is more in a direction that you "guid" a character you "build". In some first person game like Fallout 3 you are supposed to BE the character not guide him but assume you are the person you created. For example it should be no problem for a very skiny and weak person to play in a role playing game a barbarian with muscles of steel and people without academic education playing a genius character with high knowledge in mathematics for example. The game decides if you are succesfull or not (the so called dicre roling) and not your skills with shooters or what ever. I know its a bit unclear particularly as modern games tend not to use any real category anymore and with terms that even could count Doom or Oblivion as RPG when they are action and/or adventure games. That people have a different preference is alright and neither you nor others have to explain why they like what they like. But you can not expect from us to accept it that others want to explain us why their preference is the best one and why we should like that as well.
I role-play from time to time as well actu8ally in Oblivion my last Character was an attempt to create a Paladin or Crusader type who eventually fell from grace when he was infected with vampirism but I also like to have the ability to max my characters if I want to. It’s not like i'm saying people should be forced to take that path but is it so horrible to have the option to do so if one so desired? It's all about options which is why I like the idea of Hardcore mode even though i probably would never use it myself. To give the option to the player is nice but I probably wouldn't buy New Vegas if it were mandatory. Also on the note of a strength based character I don’t particularly like them. I like Intelligence/Perception based characters more and that’s why I find the idea of having to worry about lugging my ammo and medicine to be a pain.
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
Hence roleplaying.tnu said:
Thats not roleplaying thats larping. In other words pretending to play a "role". Oblivion doesnt know the class of a Paladin just as it has no real consequence to vampirism or anything related to it ( A few rather superficial changes).tnu said:
As said, if you dont have some limits with the game world or at least a world which reacts to your choices then its very hard to talk from a role playing game. By the way Oblivion cant be compared with the cRPG Fallout 1 wants to be as both games have completely different experience as target. (Not that you compared them, but I am just saying).
Also what facesless stranger said. Roleplaying requires from you to make choices for your player/character and deal with it. Or you end up with a jack-of-all trades doom-space-marine character.
Ah larping comes from "live action roleplaying" Thats RPing in rl dressup up as Orc, mage etc etc. Its a term like pen & paper wich means you do it at home at your table like playing D&D.
Roleplaying is both, stats and character of a person. A simple example is he/she is strong (str 8) but how behaves this character because of it ? Is he/she a bully or does he/she feels like a clumsy giant because of it etc etc.....
The definition of roleplaying is sadly very cheesy and thats why Beth says "we are making roleplaying games" and others say "nope, not at all"
Roleplaying is both, stats and character of a person. A simple example is he/she is strong (str 8) but how behaves this character because of it ? Is he/she a bully or does he/she feels like a clumsy giant because of it etc etc.....
The definition of roleplaying is sadly very cheesy and thats why Beth says "we are making roleplaying games" and others say "nope, not at all"
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
tnu said:
Frankly yes, unless you put a casual/noob/easy/whatever mode. Trying to balance both gameplay philosophies at once is very hard, if not impossible. Someone said "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody".
Yes, but it can be somewhat (miss)used on games like Oblivoin where some people find it funny to "roleplay" a guard for example doing "guard things" like using their armor (which only works with cheats I think) and walk around the towns at night with a torch light. THing is just that for the game this has no meaning what so ever as the game will never register or see you as town guard. So you just "pretend" to be in that role.Lynette said: