Todd Howard on X-Play, again

[Paladin Solo]

Wait, they're going to randomize the damage done with weapons in a FIRST-PERSON game? Then why the Hell are they making it first-person? The reason why the damage is randomized is because you aren't playing in the perspective of the character, such as was the case in Fallout. Fallout 3, however, is first-person, and in a first-person game, you are the character!

 

[Ashmo]

But without the random chance of missing your enemies at point blank range it wouldn't be an RPG, would it?

Because everybody knows RPGs are about having stats you can use to make your character suck less.

 

[Anani Masu]

Wait, they're going to randomize the damage done with weapons in a FIRST-PERSON game? Then why the Hell are they making it first-person? The reason why the damage is randomized is because you aren't playing in the perspective of the character, such as was the case in Fallout. Fallout 3, however, is first-person, and in a first-person game, you are the character!

I don't really follow you here. Randomization is put into games, irrespective of genre or perspective, to make the game less predictable. Some people might think that being perfectly predictable is preferable (witness the brouhaha from TF purists about the presence of not only damage ranges on weapons but critical hits in TF2) but most people seem to enjoy having a little luck in the equation.

 

[Ashmo]

Nononono...

The randomisation in first person is added to represent the accuracy of the weapon and the opponent's dodging.

Ever played Counter-Strike? A point-blank headshot is a point-blank headshot. Unless you're in the Matrix fighting Neo or your gun has been run over by a steamroller, you can't bloody miss.

In third-person the actual aiming is abstracted and taken over by the computer based on your character's skill. In first person you do the aiming. Simple as that.

Yes, there's still some factors out of your reach, but aiming is NOT.

 

[Paladin Solo]

I don't really follow you here. Randomization is put into games, irrespective of genre or perspective, to make the game less predictable. Some people might think that being perfectly predictable is preferable (witness the brouhaha from TF purists about the presence of not only damage ranges on weapons but critical hits in TF2) but most people seem to enjoy having a little luck in the equation.

In a first-person game, you control the aim. The character's stats, such as strength, can randomize how much the gun kicks back, or the wind can randomize how far off the bullet is from the target, but the bullet doesn't randomly do less or more damage based on 'ammo damage' or 'weapons skill' since in a first-person game, the player controls the weapon theirself. Bethesda is just trying to emulate a Fallout game into the Oblivion design.

 

[Anani Masu]

I don't really follow you here. Randomization is put into games, irrespective of genre or perspective, to make the game less predictable. Some people might think that being perfectly predictable is preferable (witness the brouhaha from TF purists about the presence of not only damage ranges on weapons but critical hits in TF2) but most people seem to enjoy having a little luck in the equation.

In a first-person game, you control the aim. The character's stats, such as strength, can randomize how much the gun kicks back, or the wind can randomize how far off the bullet is from the target, but the bullet doesn't randomly do less or more damage based on 'ammo damage' or 'weapons skill' since in a first-person game, the player controls the weapon theirself. Bethesda is just trying to emulate a Fallout game into the Oblivion design.

Except you're patently wrong on that claim. I'll use TF2 again because you seemed to have ignored it the first time and I'm most familiar with it. Team Fortress 2 has damage ranges on all weapons. Let us take the medic's syringe gun as an example which has a damage range of 10-15. So yes even if you are right in their face aiming perfectly when you pull the trigger you're damage will be affected by luck. This is before we get into the critical hits which will always do 30 damage. So a medic standing face to face with a soldier can kill him in as few as 7 shots (all crits) or as many as 20. Again it's a design decision that has no ties to a specific genre or perspective.

 

[Paladin Solo]

I like how we're now comparing Fallout 3 with multiplayer frag-fest shooters. I also like how you assume I've ignored something when you're ignoring how randomising ammo damage doesn't make sense in a first-person shooter other than to create a frag-fest, despite how fun it may or may not be. Even for different caliber weapons, a bullet is a bullet. There is no number tied to how much damage it will do at a minimum and maximum. I don't really see how hard it is to understand that.

The reason why it is randomised in Fallout and Fallout 2 was because you're not playing as the perspective of the character, whereas in Fallout 3, you are. I don't think TF2 was going for emulating Fallout when such a decision was made, rather than making a fun online frag-fest- but if you're saying that's what Fallout 3 is, since you're not the first person who's been comparing Fallout 3 with multiplayer frag-fest FPS games, then I might agree with you.

Randomising ammunition damage per type in a first-person shooter is just a decision to not have to work on creating factors such as wind speed and direction, weapon handling skill, weapon recoil, weapon condition (which I believe is somewhat in), and other non-random factors that properly affect how a bullet will fly, that is if you would care about those things- which if you wouldn't, then why randomise anyways, oh right, you're making a fun frag-fest game. I sometimes forget Fallout 3 is in the hands of confused and lazy people.

The point is, it doesn't matter if things are randomised in other first-person games, we're discussing the relevance of it being a Fallout game in first-person viewpoint with randomised damage. So if you wish to compare Fallout 3 with TF2, you're only furthering the futility of randomising bullet damage in a first-person Fallout game because if they wanted to randomise it, they should've stuck with the original formula of 3rd-person ISO. If they want to make a TF2 clone, then they shouldn't be doing it with Fallout 3.

So, there are two reasons why they're doing it. Either they don't know how to properly make a Fallout game, so they (as they have stated it before) are doing what they know best, and/or they have a weird idea that it makes perfect sense to shoot a bullet point-blank and only do the minimum damage or miss completely because Fallout and Fallout 2 had such goofs even if they weren't first-person shooters.

But yes, I'm patently wrong for stating "in a first-person game, you control the aim." I forgot we're all characters in a 3rd-person ISO cRPG where some other dimensional person is controlling our aim in a first-person shooter.

 

[Anani Masu]

No, you are patently wrong for stating "in a first-person game, you control the aim and that means that you can't have random damage ranges. The two do not follow each other. Now you could certainly say "I dislike having random damage in a 1st person game." That is entirely reasonable and I might even agree with you to some extent.

The problem is that you keep making ridiculous imperative statements like "There is no number tied to how much damage it will do at a minimum and maximum" and "The reason why it is randomised in Fallout and Fallout 2 was because you're not playing as the perspective of the character". These are design decisions that operate independantly of perspective. I'm sure I could find an example of every possible variation of perspective and genre in both random damage range and fixed damage flavor.

Also I never even said one word about fallout 3 much less compared it to TF2. I don't know how the fuck you ending up with "If they want to make a TF2 clone" except through willful misrepresentation.

 

[Ashmo]

Yes, FPS damage can be random.

BUT it's random for different reasons.

It does NOT make sense to miss at point-blank in an FPS (provided you aim at all). It CAN make sense in an RPG.

 

[Paladin Solo]

No, you are patently wrong for stating "in a first-person game, you control the aim and that means that you can't have random damage ranges.

I never said you can't. If you're going to make up stupid claims, I suggest you try not to be politically correct about what defines an RPG/FPS as if you're talking about whether one should say African-American or black guy.

The problem is that you keep making ridiculous imperative statements

No, you just don't get it. Let me put it in terms you might understand.

Me aim gun.

Me shoot gun.

Oops, me only do minimum damage and miss the giant mutant boss penis and shoot my friend two feet away instead. Lulz, this game is genioos, like TF2!

Now for Fallout;

Me tell character to aim gun.

Me tell character to shoot gun.

Oops, me only give character too little weapons skill points and bad eyesight, he not good shooter.

What is Fallout? A 3rd-person ISO cRPG? What is Fallout 3? A first-person action/adventure RPG? Lulz, I know not the difference! I fail! Me no understand the difference of you play in the perspective of the character in first-person and third-person, me should be more like you and make up more stupid analogies and then get pissed off about someone calling me out on it.

Comprehension is your friend, use it often, use it well.

Also I never even said one word about fallout 3 much less compared it to TF2. I don't know how the fuck you ending up with "If they want to make a TF2 clone" except through willful misrepresentation.

Ah, now I know why you failed the comprehension roll.

Here, more caveman talk for you to be able to understand;

"game with perspective same as me so I can control what and where I shoot"
"nooo nub, you know nuzzink, TF2 did random damage"
"Fallout 3 not TF2"
"does not compute, fuck you and you're patently making of patents for patently wrong patented claims, you patent-loving whore, me will ignore everything that makes sense to other people and say stupid shit because me like saying the word 'patent'"

What? We're talking about the intentions of random ammo damage in a first-person Fallout 3 and not about TF2? No wai! I should actually read what this thread is about before posting stupid shit!

Are you now capable of understanding what is being said, or would you like to tell me some more that I don't know what I'm talking about when it seems I'm not the only one who understands what I'm saying.

 

[Anani Masu]

So your point, aside from "I am a giant flaming asshole", is that you dislike random aiming and damage within a first person game. That is fine. If you didn't couch your language like you had the master plan for exactly what mechanics can be used with what perspective then we probably wouldn't have gotten into this bullshit.

 

[Paladin Solo]

So your point, aside from "I am a giant flaming asshole", is that you dislike random aiming and damage within a first person game. That is fine. If you didn't couch your language like you had the master plan for exactly what mechanics can be used with what perspective then we probably wouldn't have gotten into this bullshit.

I love these claims you keep making. At least you mask your confusion with an articulate nature. Too bad that won't save you from being confused.

You said;

I don't really follow you here. Randomization is put into games, irrespective of genre or perspective, to make the game less predictable. Some people might think that being perfectly predictable is preferable (witness the brouhaha from TF purists about the presence of not only damage ranges on weapons but critical hits in TF2) but most people seem to enjoy having a little luck in the equation.

Congratulations on your disorderly introduction into page 2. Hopefully page 3 will go better for you. Because when talking about randomizing ammunition damage, nowhere is it implied games should avoid all randomization. If you had actually read into what is said, we probably wouldn't have gotten into this bullshit.

 

[Brother None]

Congratulations on your disorderly introduction into page 2. Hopefully page 3 will go better for you. Because when talking about randomizing ammunition damage, nowhere is it implied games should avoid any randomization.

Yeah, ok, time to shut up. There hasn't been a single argument other than a lot of semantic nitpicking and "oh man you totally used the wrong words" type bullshit from the two of your for quite a few posts now.

Time to stop. Or if you really feel the need to continue, take it to PMs, because this is private bickering, and has no place on a forum.