VATS is not RTwP

[Brother None]

In a Bethesda forum post, AI programmer Jay “RadHamster” Woodward explains why he thinks VATS and RTwP are really not the same:<blockquote> One key distinction between VATS and RTwP is that VATS provides a tactical view, complete with chance-to-hit percentages, much like the aimed shot display from the original Fallout, presented in the actual game view as a HUD overlay. This isn’t just eye candy; the percentages are exactly reflecting what’s going to happen “behind the scenes.” That’s quite unlike any RTwP system I’m familiar with.

An even more fundamental distinction between VATS and a real-time-with-pause system is what happens when you leave the “pause” mode and the action resume.

In a RTwP system, when the action starts again, you’re simply back to real-time.

In VATS, when the action starts again, you’re not back to real-time. Rather, you’re in a mode where your character acts quickly, while the rest of the world is heavily slowed down. Again, the results of your actions are purely statistics-driven, based on the percentage chances that were presented in the tactical view. And again, that’s different from any RTwP system that I’m aware of.

Obviously VATS is different than taking a turn. But I can tell you, in my own entirely subjective and personal experience, that when I enter VATS, queue up some shots, and fire, it does indeed feel very much like I have chosen to “take a turn” at that moment, in the sense that the world stops and what I choose to do happens more-or-less “immediately” and in a purely stat-based fashion.

Do note that I’m not saying anything new about VATS here; I’m just contrasting the major points of distinction with RTwP. As Brio pointed out earlier, all of this detail and more can be found in the official fan interview; I recommend checking it out.</blockquote>Hit comments if you want to see why I, having seen the demo, disagree.

Link: forum post on BGSF.

Spotted on Fallout 3: A Post Nuclear Blog.

 

[Brother None]

I'm going to blunt here: I don't get where he's coming from. As a programmer and a professional game developer, he should really know better.

His two points boil down to this: VATS is unique because:
1. When you pause, it pulls up a screen with to-hit chances.
2. After you exit paused mode, the PC moves faster than the NPCs.

Now, assuming that he's arguing about VATS and RTwP being significantly different, that is to say mechanically different and not just different in the way they "feel" (which would be a ludicrous argument to make, all RTwP systems feel different), I'd disagree for two rather obvious reasons:
1. The to-hit screen doesn't have any mechanical significance. It tells the player how much of a chance of success he has in direct percentages. But these kind of percentages exist in many RPGs. If I'm trying to hit someone with a bow and arrow from paused modes from a game like Baldur's Gate or the soon-to-be-released Drakensang, the computer will have to calculate whether or not I hit. I don't know this percentage to hit, though I can figure it out if I know the PnP rules either game is based on really well.

But so what?

Are you going to tell me that knowing the percentages to hit while in paused mode is a significant, mechanical change? It is giving the player extra information. And that's nice - and the same thing Fallout did - but it does not magically change anything about the actual mechanics of using Fallout 3's RTwP system. If I pause in Mass Effect and get a bunch of options, I can figure out from my knowledge of the system which option is best in this situation. Difference mechanically? Zero.

2. They have actually explained the motivation behind this move, because it really wasn't "we want to innovative in this game". No, they found out the PC can die too easily when his VATS moves play out and that's "not fun".

Great logic, guys.

But guess what, all you did was place a nerf on the NPCs when using pause in Fallout 3. Think about that for a while, because mechanically speaking a nerf is just a way to reinstate balance in a PC-NPC fight. Mechanically speaking, it's not relevant if you make the world move slower than the PC, or just make the NPCs weaker when the PC is using pause, or just make the PC tougher when he is using pause.

So where's the innovation? It's a nerf. Are we honestly going to pretend nerfs are a mechanic upgrade of such magnitude that you can speak of an entirely different system? If I make an FPS with a button that nerfs all opponents when I push it, is that FPS significantly different? Is Max Payne no longer an FPS just because it has bullet time?

 

[sanyok21]

well basically yeah, max payne is not your typical FPS, you can't compare it with doom because the fights are completely different. until we all actually play the game, and feel how the fights go, i think we should give the system a chance. they had a right do make something a little different, and it might work.
i'm much more worried about the style of play being exactly like oblivion. if we have multiple choices, absolutely unlinear game like in fallout(unlike oblivion), choices and consequences, some kind of "random encounters" with the same feel like fallout(and not just meeting "beasts" and killing them on the way all the time, with it just being a nag), NPCS with personalities and true dialogs, this game could be a true sequel which we'll enjoy. but if we'll be able to join both slavers and rangers, and help both the enclave and the village, then this game is doomed.

 

[Maszin]

Well duh... Of course RTwP and VATS are not the same because

In VATS, when the action starts again, you’re not back to real-time. Rather, you’re in a mode where your character acts quickly, while the rest of the world is heavily slowed down.

VATS is really bullet time. With pause.
That statement that 'it's different and innovative because it shows numbers' got me thinking - these guys aren't by any chance related to Apple's PR team, are they? Because it sounds oddly familiar to iPhone propaganda.

 

[MrBumble]

In VATS, when the action starts again, you’re not back to real-time. Rather, you’re in a mode where your character acts quickly, while the rest of the world is heavily slowed down.

lulz wot ?!

Why ?

EDIT : just seen Brother None's answer. Beth, how about the VATS reloading if you have a critical success ? That would be a bit like Burnout ! It would push back the boundaries of the already uber fucktarded gameplay, wouldn't it be cool ?

 

[Brother None]

well basically yeah, max payne is not your typical FPS, you can't compare it with doom because the fights are completely different.

Oh, definitely. And you'll note how my argument wasn't about the option of Fallout 3's RTwP feeling identical to that of, say, Drakensang or Baldur's Gate. I was simply explaining why this is just all smoke and mirrors, and mechanically irrelevant.

they had a right do make something a little different, and it might work.

They sure did have the right to make something a little different! But they didn't, they just went for RTwP.

 

[Black]

Oh goodie. It's real-time with pause and slowmo. That changes a lot of things.

 

[ronin84]

regarding combat...

wasn't fallout essentially real time with turn based combat?

VATS, from the often cryptic and varying ideas each of the Beth developers seem to have, seems to be quite similar, other than the fact that while you're paused, the enemies queue up moves as well, so when you 'unpause', both move at the same time.

why does that automatically throw up red flags as being a worse combat system. is it simply the fact that it's not as tactical as the player taking a turn, then the enemies, then the player, etc etc.

i'm curious because i see the positives and negatives of both, but i can't sit here and say the combat in F3 will suck cause it's RTwP.

 

[Brother None]

VATS, from the often cryptic and varying ideas each of the Beth developers seem to have, seems to be quite similar, other than the fact that while you're paused, the enemies queue up moves as well, so when you 'unpause', both move at the same time.

What?

There's no mechanical similarity at all. Normal combat in Fallout 3 is realtime, there is no realtime combat at all in Fallout 1/2. In Fallout 3, you can pause as an option in realtime combat, and then queue up moves.

I think you're completely misunderstanding, ronin. Read up some more from the fan Q&A or whatever, there is no mechanical similarity between the combat system in Fallout 1 and that in Fallout 3, other than that both offer skill-based aiming.

i'm curious because i see the positives and negatives of both, but i can't sit here and say the combat in F3 will suck cause it's RTwP.

It'll suck because it's mixing and matching different, dissonant ideas.

It's a bad idea because RTwP is not true to Fallout's design philosophy.

 

[SuAside]

so we're talking FEAR with pause and hit percentages displayed, coupled to the fact you dont even have to aim yourself when exiting pause! yay!

 

[bazola]

This isn't the first time that a game developer has claimed that bullet time in his game is a new innovation.

 

[shihonage]

Well I have to say if you can QUEUE shots in this system then indeed it may be different from something like KOTOR's retarded way of handling combat.

 

[Sander]

regarding combat...

wasn't fallout essentially real time with turn based combat?

VATS, from the often cryptic and varying ideas each of the Beth developers seem to have, seems to be quite similar, other than the fact that while you're paused, the enemies queue up moves as well, so when you 'unpause', both move at the same time.

why does that automatically throw up red flags as being a worse combat system. is it simply the fact that it's not as tactical as the player taking a turn, then the enemies, then the player, etc etc.

i'm curious because i see the positives and negatives of both, but i can't sit here and say the combat in F3 will suck cause it's RTwP.

We're not saying that it won't be fun, generally we're saying that it won't be Fallout.

 

[pnutz]

Right on. A mix of Call of Duty 4, Resident Evil, and Oblivion might be a damn fun game, but passing said game off as "Fallout 3" shows an utter lack of respect for your source material and your audience.

 

[Beelzebud]

I think it should be obvious by now that they don't respect the source material or the audience.

This is an Xbox 360 Action-RPG.

I just wish they could have came up with their original IP's and let Fallout die. I'd rather have the franchise die than be bastardized even more than Interplay managed to do before they went under the first time.

 

[Stag]

Is Max Payne no longer an FPS just because it has bullet time?

Max Payne is a third-person shooter video game

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!111onemillion

-

Beth PR (regardless of source) is definitely irritating and fallacious. VATS is so ridiculous. How long would it take for them to implement a real turn-based system? A few days? Jesus.
Good sticking with your guns, Beth.

 

[JR Jansen]

Obviously VATS is different than taking a turn. But I can tell you, in my own entirely subjective and personal experience, that when I enter VATS, queue up some shots, and fire, it does indeed feel very much like I have chosen to “take a turn”

Isn't it funny that they are still trying to spin their combat system so that it 'looks' TB ?

Can i stop laughing now ?

 

[Brother None]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!111onemillion

Oh, whoops, TPS. Force of habit. Obviously an FPS without first-person view is not an FPS.

 

[Madbringer]

FPS - you run, shoot, collect items.
TPS - you run, shoot, collect items, and stare at the PC's ass all the time.

OH WOW A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE.

 

[Black]

Beth PR (regardless of source) is definitely irritating and fallacious. VATS is so ridiculous. How long would it take for them to implement a real turn-based system? A few days? Jesus.
Good sticking with your guns, Beth.

Har, har. Don't forget that "turn-based", "something new" and "innovations" in general are not things that beth does well.