PlayStation Universe interviews Pete Hines

[FeelTheRads]

but can you argue that it isn't the ultimate goal? Being there?

Yeah, I can. Because RPGs are not about being there. They're about the character you create, not about you.
If you want it to be about you go dress in a vault suit and drink from a flask.

 

[eff-out]

but can you argue that it isn't the ultimate goal? Being there?

Yeah, I can. Because RPGs are not about being there. They're about the character you create, not about you.
If you want it to be about you go dress in a vault suit and drink from a flask.

That's such a non argument I can't believe I have to clarify. Can you argue that it isn't the ultimate goal? Being there as some cooler dude in a hat?

 

[fedaykin]

In fact turn based combat in many P&P systems is a weakness, because having fights like that breaks immersion in the game and makes the players very aware that they are playing a game.

Are you seriously implying that playing in real time somehow makes you less aware that it's a game?

 

[ArmorB]

In fact turn based combat in many P&P systems is a weakness, because having fights like that breaks immersion in the game and makes the players very aware that they are playing a game.

Are you seriously implying that playing in real time somehow makes you less aware that it's a game?

If you play in real time there is less of a break from the real time conversations and looking about. So if you accept the non-combat as being immersive then you'd have to accept FPS combat being more immersive than TB. Where as if you accept the immersion level running about and clicking in FO/FO2 and then break into TB combat it could be argued that theat change of 'pace' breaks immersion.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Being there as some cooler dude in a hat?

Well, certainly Bethesda thinks so, by adding hats and all.

 

[Kyuu]

I don't see what is so hard to understand for some people.

A lot of those around here, myself included, enjoyed Fallout. We want another game in the same vein. We don't want to play what essentially amounts to Oblivion with guns and a few superficial elements from the Fallouts thrown in. Oblivion, and the type of game that Bethesda is making Fallout 3 into, is simply a different sort of game than the original Fallouts were. To argue otherwise is simply foolish.

There's no need to argue about whether or not you like RT-combat or FPP, or whether they're more popular in general. They're not what we, as fans of the originals want to play. If you love Oblivion and its perspective and combat system, great. I thought Oblivion was a total piece of trash, myself, but that's not really relevant. It's not Fallout, and it's not what I and a lot of Fallout fans want in a Fallout sequel because those, and other things that Bethesda is doing to the game, do not line up with the design philosophies that produced the game we love.

Ugh. -_-

 

[eff-out]

Being there as some cooler dude in a hat?

Well, certainly Bethesda thinks so, by adding hats and all.

Hyuck! Shore do!

 

[sarfa]

Real time isn't an evolution of turn based? Many P&P systems nowadays emphasise that turns don't happen in the game world sequentially and thus the GM should adjudicate what can happen in a turn based on what would happen if it was happening in real time. 'Tick' based turn based combat systems very much are a turn based system that a real time could evolve from if such were possible with the format of tabletop roleplaying. Not unlike the arithmetic in Fallout 1 & 2.

No Brother None, by portraying the game world from the IC (In Character) perspective you are very much trying to emulate P&P. The GM would never describe the world from an isometric view point, a good GM describes it from the first person view point. Unless of course, your referring to Isometric being good because it's like looking at a table with figures on it- at which point you're emulating rollplaying, not roleplaying.

Considering that (with the exception of Cortex) the systems I mentioned were light on dice rolls, yes I do consider dice rolls to be a weakness. But keeping them to a minimum, like Pendragon does (roll to hit, roll for damage, no roll for protection or defense, only one roll for damage possible when two people are fighting each other and no roll for initiative) and Amber (Which ofcourse, is diceless). I think if you have a look at diceless systems like Amber and MURPG you'll see that actually diceless roleplaying games can work. Ambers combat system is one of the best ones out there. The issue is keeping them to a minimum- Fallout doesn't keep the number of randomly generated numbers (Or 'dice rolls') to a minimum by any stretch of the imagination, and each one requires complicated calculations to fully resolve.

If pretending to be the PC isn't what playing a P&P game is to you, then we're coming from very different viewpoints here. Role playing is all about pretending to be the PC, thats why it's role playing, not rollplaying. I suppose if you're a rollplayer, then your point about pretending to be the PC not being what P&P is about stands, for a roleplayer, it doesn't.

DSA isn't a system I've much experience with, but GURPS is not a system I like.

 

[JESUS]

You guys like stalker, right? Isn't that less of an RPG than Fallout 3?

Stalker was not supposed to be a cRPG, it's supposed to be a FPS with RPG elements, like Fallout 3 is turning out to be.

Do you think the old Fallout games were more action oriented or more rpg oriented (and by rpg i meant more dialogues and more choices to resolve situations other than shooting stuff)?

 

[FeelTheRads]

eff-out, that signature of yours might not have the effect you think around here. Might want to try it on Bethesda's forums, I'm sure it will bust a couple of testicles there.

 

[eff-out]

You guys like stalker, right? Isn't that less of an RPG than Fallout 3?

Stalker was not supposed to be a cRPG, it's supposed to be a FPS with RPG elements, like Fallout 3 is turning out to be.

Do you think the old Fallout games were more action oriented or more rpg oriented (and by rpg i meant more dialogues and more choices to resolve situations other then shooting stuff)?

Really, I think the fact that Fallout: Tactics exists shows that Fallout was pretty action oriented. Edit: But obviously more RPG oriented in general.

Oh, and Fallout 3 is an RPG with a First Person viewpoint. It's not a First Person Shooter anymore than Fallout was a Top-Down Shooter.

eff-out, that signature of yours might not have the effect you think around here. Might want to try it on Bethesda's forums, I'm sure it will bust a couple of testicles there.

Whatever you say.

 

[JESUS]

Really, I think the fact that Fallout: Tactics exists shows that Fallout was pretty action oriented.

Really? than i think that Bethesda should rename the game to Fallout Tactics 2, because this is supposed to be Fallout 3 right?

 

[Kyuu]

Oh, and Fallout 3 is an RPG with a First Person viewpoint.

Not if it plays more like an FPS than an RPG, which is what all the combat videos seem to suggest.

Really, I think the fact that Fallout: Tactics exists shows that Fallout was pretty action oriented.

... You're joking right? Fallout: Tactics existence proves nothing other than that a tactical shooting game was at one point made out of the Fallout universe. At least they had the brains to realize they were making a spin-off and not an actual pre-/sequel. FOT was not an RPG, and no one is arguing that FO3 should be made more like it, so I fail to see where it fits into the argument at all.

 

[eff-out]

Really, I think the fact that Fallout: Tactics exists shows that Fallout was pretty action oriented.

Really, i think than that Bethesda should rename the game to Fallout Tactics 2, because this is supposed to be Fallout 3 right?

Sorry, my edit didn't go through quite in time. It wasn't MORE of an action game, but it's action was a big appeal for a lot of people.

 

[eff-out]

Not if it plays more like an FPS than an RPG, which is what all the combat videos seem to suggest.

So, if it's in first person and it has shooting, it's a first person shooter - right?

So, if it's top down and has shooting...?

As far as how the videos look, explain a realistic way of showing first person combat with fallout's weapons without it looking like an FPS at a glance.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Really, I think the fact that Fallout: Tactics exists shows that Fallout was pretty action oriented.

And the fact that Dr. Mario exists shows that Mario was Tetris oriented.


What?

 

[eff-out]

Really, I think the fact that Fallout: Tactics exists shows that Fallout was pretty action oriented.

And the fact that Dr. Mario exists shows that Mario was Tetris oriented.


What?

Look, I'll give you that one. Thank you for latching on to the weakest, most inconsequential and most poorly worded argument though. You know Brother None and I have written a small novel in this thread right?

 

[sarfa]

In fact turn based combat in many P&P systems is a weakness, because having fights like that breaks immersion in the game and makes the players very aware that they are playing a game.

Are you seriously implying that playing in real time somehow makes you less aware that it's a game?

In P&P sessions nothing kills the mood and suspense the GM has spent so much time and effort than the words "Roll for initiative", or other such phrase that indicates that now we're rolling lots of dice in turns as opposed to roleplaying. Systems that place less emphasis on the turn aren't quite as bad for this in my experience.

Thats what I was implying.

 

[Brother None]

Don't double-post, eff-out. Didn't I tell you this already?

First of all, you play these games because you enjoy them, stigmatizing "fun" just makes you sound pretentious.

I don't mean to stigmatise fun. I love deep films, but I can't watch any of them as much as I do Commando. Because Commando is just awezomoooooos!

However, I do object to Primacy of Fun, the design philosophy that everything has to give way to "fun". I don't believe great games are made that way.

Second of all, I believe it will be limited to TB because I'm a common-senser, not a doomsayer.

How is that common sense? If Bethesda is willing to cut TB to broaden the scope of the franchise, why would they not be willing to cut into other "tough" elements of the genre to broaden its scope?

Didn't Pete say there was more dialogue in F3 than in the first two combined?

So was there in Oblivion. I don't think quantity is really the issue there.

You and I are making the same point, only instead of following your argument to its logical conclusion, you're drawing some arbitrary line in the sand? Games and game-play evolve, and should evolve

That's my line in the sand right there: evolution does not mean convergence. Why should all games be real time? Why should all games be first person? What's the fun in making one big design philosophy that fits all?

I loved how RPGs in the late 90s innovated on the pen and paper emulation by offering a different type of RPG. But why was it necessary to drop pen and paper emulating RPGs wholesale? It's not like they're mutually exclusive.

That's exactly why the line isn't arbitrary: it's looking at what you're capable of, working with what you have and evolving it. Recent RPGs aren't about evolving pen and paper emulating philosophies at all, I would love it if they do that and make a Fallout sequel with better (and yes: more fun) turn-based combat and deeper choice and consequences, but instead people just abandoned the concept wholesale.

How is that an evolution?

I know "immersion" is a dirty word here (and marketing-buzzword that it is, I get why) but can you argue that it isn't the ultimate goal? Being there?

It is the goal of some RPGs. I ask again: what's wrong with diversity? Why does it have to be the goal of every type of RPG out there? "Immersion" is a relatively new concept of what we'll just call the "immersive" brand of RPGs. And it's fine that they exist, but why should they be the only genre of RPGs?

Every RPG is emulating pen and paper to a certain extent because the first RPG's were pen and paper (and I don't think I'm reaching too far back to make this point).

I don't really have to explain why this doesn't work, I hope?

The real question should be, why are we sand-bagging ourselves by trying to emulate pen and paper when we can come closer to emulating what pen and paper were trying to emulate.

Because it offers a unique experience that going around it can't? Why are you sand-bagging out a unique experience offered by one genre of RPGs that the other can not?

I love fallout.

Then why the heckling of what it is?

Choice and Consequence, is becoming an NMA buzzword and is on the fast track to losing it's meaning, so if you could tie it to some sort of concrete idea I'd appreciate it.

NMA buzzword? Try the Codex, it's the main term there.

I'm not sure what's so complex about it. You make a choice and the game gives you the consequence. In every situation the game should maximize the amount of choices you're offered to whatever limit is realistic, and the consequences should not be designed with the intent to safeguard the player from himself.

Fallout 2 did it better than 1: think the Gecko reactor quest, getting VC into NCR, helping the mutant haters in Broken Hills.

Fallout 3 has shown more C&C than Oblivion

Obviously, it would be hard to show less C&C than Oblivion. Or Shivering Isles, which is a prime example of how to implement C&C wrongly (i.e.: none of your choices actually matter to gameplay, see for other reference: BioShock).

But we're not really looking for improvements on Oblivion, for obvious reasons.

Does this mean you shouldn't have to pick a specialization or... what does this mean? Because if it's what I think, there was a big difference just between F1 and F2 on this one. Again, just on it's face I'd say Oblivion had it and F3 probably will too.

It means that the game picks a number of paths you can follow with a certain skill-set. I misphrased it, because the primacy is not in the skill set or balance, but in the fact that they support a character-skill based game. No idea why I left that one out of the list, but that's another core value of pen and paper-emulating games that ties into the skill system.

In the case of GURPS and the GURPS-based SPECIAL, the game should offer numerous paths (for Fallout: Dialogue, Stealth, Science, Combat) and you should in principle be able to complete the game with skills in only one single path. And all tests should depend primarily on the PC's skill, not the player's skill.

Fairly important point, that last one, sorry for leaving it out earlier. Must be getting old.

One you know isn't in Fallout 3, the rest are too subjective or general to make a rational judgment either way.

Why? Because you don't like the conclusion?

Especially since this site seems to embace the Fallout aesthetic more than it's technical minutiae.

This makes me think you honestly don't want to understand my position: how is the core philosophy Fallout was based on technical minutiae? Heck, Fallout started as Project GURPS, a pen and paper-emulating RPG, and they considered different settings before settling on post-apocalyptic and retro-50s thanks to Campbell/Boyarsky. They considered and dropped a medieval setting, they wanted to do a time-travel setting but it was too cost-intensive. At its core, this game is a pen and paper emulating, the setting is just thrown on later. And you think the aesthetic has primacy? Based on what? Your opinion?

You guys like stalker, right? Isn't that less of an RPG than Fallout 3?

Sure, but it doesn't claim to be a sequel to Fallout, now does it?

If someone wants to make a post-apocalyptic game/RPG more power to him. If this project from Bethesda was called Apocalypse Returned: Path of the Warrior we'd follow it with quite some interest. It's just not Fallout.

Real time isn't an evolution of turn based?

Indeed nope. Real time and turn based cRPGs both have a rich heritage going back decades, and they're different combat types. In one form or another they've always existed next to one another, and the popularity of RT/RTwP over TB and the need of some pen and paper games to jump the bandwagon on this success does not invalidate the value of TB as a system different than RT.

Or do you disagree? Do you think RT can offer everything TB can?

The GM would never describe the world from an isometric view point, a good GM describes it from the first person view point.

Actually, the GM says "you", that's second person perspective.

I really hope you're joking in this statement, by the way, and not honestly equating linguistics with graphical perspectives. I also addressed the point of "why isometric" already:
Equally, bird's eye view camera just works best with turn-based combat. I have always been fond of shiftable camera (RoA used it) and wouldn't mind seeing a pen and paper emulation with first-person/OTS exploration and bird's eye-view combat.
I don't think the camera view really matters once you dump the TB gameplay, tho'. It's not so much a separate point as an extension of the same one: bird's eye view just fits pen and paper gameplay because of TB combat, it doesn't fit the gameplay independently. At least, that's my argument, it's well possible people have other reasons to be sticklers for isometric.

I think if you have a look at diceless systems like Amber and MURPG you'll see that actually diceless roleplaying games can work.

Fantastic. I wish you much luck in making an RPG that emulates Amber or MURPG, because Fallout isn't it, Fallout emulates GURPS primarily.

If pretending to be the PC isn't what playing a P&P game is to you, then we're coming from very different viewpoints here. Role playing is all about pretending to be the PC, thats why it's role playing, not rollplaying. I suppose if you're a rollplayer, then your point about pretending to be the PC not being what P&P is about stands, for a roleplayer, it doesn't.

Wow, nice going stuffing people in boxes there. Let me counter with equal box-stuffing since it's so easy: I'm a role-player, I play a role, I do not pretend to be a person. If you're pretending to be someone else, you're LARPing.

Yay, I win the lazy arguments battle!

But seriously, we're getting into even further genre-subdivides here. It sounds to me like you really like pen and paper games with simplified rules that move at a fast, easy pace. That's cool, but when you're talking about games like Fallout or Realms of Arkania they're specifically emulating pen and paper systems that do not share that philosophy.

 

[Ausir]

How is that common sense? If Bethesda is willing to cut TB to broaden the scope of the franchise, why would they not be willing to cut into other "tough" elements of the genre to broaden its scope?

They also did it with the character system with the elimination of traits and perks every level.