Why do so many people here think First Person excludes RPG?

[Ulysses]

I like how people claim that combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was somehow challenging. Yeah, I guess, if you were an idiot. The only danger was the random 5000 damage minigun hit amongst the plethora of 2-3 point hits.

True enough, I wouldn't make that claim or that it was more tactical. Fallout 3's combat isn't more tactical or challenging though - depsite people's claims that the NPCs flank, suppress, etc. STALKER was a better FPS than Fallout 3 though, in my opinion.

 

[Herr Mike]

So to make the game challenging you're supposed to limit yourself, rather than expect the developers to properly balance it?

Pfft.

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it might make the game more fun. Different players have different preferences, and different skill levels. If you suck at FPS you probably need to use VATS. If I played on a console, I would most certainly have to use VATS because I can't aim for shit with a gamepad. In comparison I'm a crack shot with WASD and a mouse so using VATS "robs" me a lot of game.

Anyway, if it makes it more fun, why not? I do it in a lot of the games I play. In Baseball Mogul you can rape the AI in trades, but it just makes it no fun. I'm not going to fault the developers for not creating a perfect AI. In Fallout I used to limit myself to a carrying 2 or 3 guns. I found it to be much more fun than being a human battleship.

That's not to say the enemies in FO3 aren't stupid. They are, most of the time. They clearly should be more reactive. If they hear a gunshot or see a buddy get his head blown off, they should assume defensive positions. Whatever. Point is, I don't see a problem in limiting your character in reasonable ways.

Balance is overrated. Especially in an RPG. The original Fallout games were some of the easiest games to finish I've ever played, it didn't hurt them any, we can all agree on that. The point of an RPG is not to challange the player, if you ask me.

 

[Holocausto]

Eh Herr Mike this whole "just don't do/use that" self limiting is really a non solution to me. It's like excusing the devs for WHATEVER. 'Oh this aspect sucks? well don't exploit the situation by doing this that or the other thing' Come on. At what point do you stop pointing at yourself for the solution and start EXPECTING it from the devs? If this is how it's gonna be I will rate all games a 5 and only after modders fix them will I give them the "real" rating. You should use this mod, it's great:

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=611

 

[Shattering Fast]

Re: Why do so many people here think First Person excludes R

Ouch, ya got me, hoss! My evil plot to undermine the debate...foiled again!

I just wanted to make sure everyone saw what you were trying to do. Think of it as a public service to the good people of NMA.

Oh, and do you have those numbers Per asked for yet?

In all seriousness, though: in the debate over whether Fallout 3 is a true "Fallout" title - taking into question it's FP perspective, it's lack of "dark humor", and it's real-time combat - there really aren't any points to be made besides opinions. The fact of the matter is that I think a Fallout game is made of different things than you do. It's as simple as that.

Hmm, I think you're on to something here. Maybe it really is just my opinion that the original developers deliberately created a trimetric, turn-based roleplaying game with the intention of emulating the pen-and-paper roleplaying experience.

It's not a "fact" that Fallout 3 is a lesser game because it diverges so much from its predessecors...it's an opinion. This debate has always been about opinions.

Maybe you should differentiate between opinions of Fallout 3 as just a game and Fallout 3 as a Fallout RPG? Unlike you, I'm not going to claim to have some sort of statistical evidence, but my general impression of Fallout 3 here at NMA is that it is a good game (at least better than Oblivion) but not a good Fallout RPG.

My own opinion is that Fallout 3 is a great shooter/RPG hybrid with a slick bombed-to-hell retro-futuristic setting. But it's not Fallout.

Your general impression of the good members of NMA is that they believe Fallout 3 to be a good game...? Seperate from its predessesors, but "good", nonetheless?

Surely, you jest?

Surely?

Are you serious?

Oof. How does one argue with a statement like that? "The sun is tinier than the head of a pin!" Oh, yes! Whatever you say, m'lord.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but your statement has obviously taken me aback.

Hrmm. Honestly, I don't see how my statement of "The majority of..." is any different from your "general impression". It's semantics, really. It seems to me as though we've both formed two seperate "general impressions" of the same group of people, as a whole. We probably just frequent different threads. So, no. No numbers for you. Not only would it be a tiresome task to compile a list of F3-Haters (though not entirely difficult, by any means), it would be wasted on you. It wouldn't change your mind. I don't want to change your mind.

Well, in the end, I'm glad that you acknowledge that your opinion is exactly that - an opinion. The intentions of the original designers of the Fallout franchise are plain to see, but they are by no means a set standard for all games within the Fallout universe. I'm glad we see eye to eye, at least on this one thing.

 

[Per]

Re: Why do so many people here think First Person excludes R

"The sun is tinier than the head of a pin!"

You wrote that to "most of the people on this forum", the phrase "A true RPG cannot be in first person because the first Fallout was isometric" is "argument is reason enough to revile F3". That's pretty bold. Now it seems your best support for your belief is that the sun is bigger than a pin or that you don't have to define "most" because that's "semantics" or something. Let's make it easy: can you find one regular here who would agree with your conclusion above? Can you find one regular who would even agree with the premise?

 

[Shattering Fast]

I like how people claim that combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was somehow challenging. Yeah, I guess, if you were an idiot. The only danger was the random 5000 damage minigun hit amongst the plethora of 2-3 point hits.

Its definetly more chalanging then Fallout 3 were one can almos finish the game bare fisted with a character that has only 1 in Strength ... no one said Fallout 1/2s combat was totally hardcore. But it definetly was less forgiving in comparision with Fallout 3.

I'd like to see video of someone doing just that: completeing the main quest and side quests bare-fisted, with 1 END (I assume you meant END, as it is the stat that governs HtH - correct me if I'm wrong), on Very Hard (the default difficulty whenever I play).

If there's a way to do it, I don't know how. Sounds good for a challenge, though.

I agree with the poster you quoted, however. By the end of the game, clad in Powered Armor and packing an Alien Blaster or a Plasma Rifle or their equivilants, Fallout 1 & 2 could get pretty sluggish near the end. It's the same in most games, really. If anything, combat in the first 2 Fallouts was a little easier than that in F3 (for an RPG vet, anyways). A good set of armor can negate attacks from virtually any enemy, turning battle that would have been a bloodbath in any other situation into "Kill these guys while they futilly hack away at my invincible armor".

Not saying it's a bad thing - sometimes its fun to just dominate. Level 21 in the first Fallout is something you actually have to work for.

In the end, though, if you play the game intelligently, it will be reduced to a "point n' kill/shoot n' kill" adventure for the last 10 hours or so.

 

[Eyenixon]

You can, I set all my attributes to 1 when fiddling with the GECK and created an item that would do so.
I also refrained from putting points in weaponry skills, boosting up stuff like Barter and Speech, what I normally wouldn't use.

Keep in mind, this was all to squeeze some difficulty from the game, so far as I had played, Fallout 3 was one of the easiest gaming experiences I had ever had the "pleasure" of indulging myself.

The difficulty was on Very Hard, had some trouble early on, but once I reached level 5 everything became easy once again, decent Combat Armor, using the right drugs and the biggest knock against Fallout 3, being skillful during combat reduced the experience into one giant methodical crawl.
There was no difficulty in it at all, I just had to work combat correctly, dodge when right, use grenades at the appropriate moments, aim for the limbs. You might call this "tactics", but considering the pace of the game it was more like I was reacting right off the top of my head, instinctive action rather than premeditated action.

Too easy, all too easy, killed a Supermutant Master here or there with a Sledgehammer, bang in his arms and he can't do squat, get a good companion and everything is cheese.

The stats don't mean anything, the skills don't mean much beyond "You need 25 Lockpick to repair this door."

RPG? At this point I doubt it, RPG-lite? Not even, it ain't a RPG folks, pack up your bags, 1 Luck in SPECIAL means critical failures, nothing here, 1 Strength in SPECIAL means no weaponry, Fallout 3? Well I guess you can carry less. 1 Agility, oh, well I guess you can't use VATS as much!

Big deal, big deal, honestly, if the stats mean this little, then it means that no character is different, and if no character is different, what makes each "role" unique? Each character? I would say nothing, and if the possibility of a unique character doesn't exist, well then, where's that role that we put in the roleplaying?

Poof, it's gone.
Low stats need to cripple you, the question isn't the perspective, but rather, the fact that real time and Bethesda's overly cautious approach spawned a creature so fickle that it does not wish to suffer upon us a challenging experience.
Presumption! Insulting my and your intelligence.
How can you play it and not feel like a child, not feel like they're looking down upon you? You, who have defeated Fallout 1 on the hardest combat and game difficulty, yet now this simplicity? A shame.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ There was a video posted on this forum sometime awhile ago with one of the locations (forget which one) cleared just as you described. It did take a few stims, but other than that looked pretty easy. It's not on Youtube though, because they deleted the video (conspiracy?).

 

[Crni Vuk]

So to make the game challenging you're supposed to limit yourself, rather than expect the developers to properly balance it?

Pfft.

Did you not heard that issues dissapear when you dont think about it, dont hear it and (pretend) not to see it? Isnt that how politics work usualy?

Fallout 3 is definetly a great RPG and FORMIDABLE! Fallout sequel. If you just tell your self that

...
If you suck at FPS you probably need to use VATS. If I played on a console, I would most certainly have to use VATS because I can't aim for shit with a gamepad. In comparison I'm a crack shot with WASD and a mouse so using VATS "robs" me a lot of game.
...
...

Dont you worry Bethesda took care about those people ... with *gasp* auto aiming! It was so awesome that there had someone even to make a mod! that removes it from the PC version [since it constantly throws of sniping, next to a few other things like a very bad and wrongly aligned scope that makes your shot shoot in a very strange vehaviour].

...
I'd like to see video of someone doing just that: completeing the main quest and side quests bare-fisted, with 1 END (I assume you meant END, as it is the stat that governs HtH - correct me if I'm wrong), on Very Hard (the default difficulty whenever I play).

If there's a way to do it, I don't know how. Sounds good for a challenge, though.

There was someone doing a video about that which was floating around here. Frankly he did not "finished" the complete game. But he took almost without any armor (more or less wearing the vault pajama) on I think hard settings with very low combat stats 3-4 raiders out with his fists.

He was going trough a lot of stimpacks, that for sure. And actualy I was surprised that you even can find so much of them in the begining of the game. Anyway. I and no one said that its really a "super easy" thing to do. But its not difficult neither.

A "hard" to play character in Fallout 3 would be a "impossible" to play one in Fallout 1/2.

Again. Fallout 1/2 was not the peak of tactical combat (it get easily in that surpased by Tactics and Jagged Alliance when it comes to just combat) and nor was it some game that demanded "hardcore" playstyle. But, a fact is that Fallout 1/2 are with both combat and quest a lot less "forgiving" compared to Bethesdas Fallout. Even a person with half a brain and a character with focus on wrong skills can finish the game without any big issues. I mean a lot of people here choose Bigguns with 100 skill points in it and finished the game using almost only small guns cause frankly this is just the most used weapon(s) in the Bethesdian Wasteland and had not more then maybe 25 or 30 points in it.

Now tell me one thing? Could you finish Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 with 25 in small guns, and using ONLY small guns? Finishing the game with a "cripled" char (meaning wrong choices in the begining with skills) would left you with a extremly frustrating experience. I once even had cause of that to start a new character as I tagged 2! weapon skills even when I ended in using only 1 of them (energy weapons that was) and realised that it became pretty difficult cause other skills had to suffer from my choice. Such things with good RPGs (like Fallout 1/2 are) add to the replay value a lot.

A character in Fallout 3 has not so much meaning with the skills anymore as compared to Fallout 1/2. Mainly due to the simplification in the use of SPECIAL in favour of Oblivions simplified mechanics. Fallout 3s mechanics are in a weird way in may places a "merging" of Fallout 1/2 special and Oblivions mechanics.

I may point out this part of VaultDvellers Oblivion Review from RPG Codex since its not banned on NMA (yet ) to give a example of what I mean:

From the role-playing point of view, Oblivion combat sucks. You always hit to please the action crowd and your skill determines damage to please the smaller RPG camp. Needless to say, 15 points of damage are more then 8 points of damage but when you always hit, it's only a matter of time (and health potions). At some point I ran into a bunch of Faded Wrath thingies that were immune to my glass sword of prettiness, I reached for my trusty staff of pretty, but deadly lightnings, and discovered that I forgot to recharge, thus establishing the parallel between me and my fictional character (I usually forget to charge my cell phone). I went through my entire, inconvenient as the back of a Volkswagen (that's a Mallrats reference), inventory and found a mace of magical awesomeness. My Sword skill was about 80, my Blunt skill was about 20. I prepared to die bravely, but since the developers knew that that would have made me upset and lowered my self-esteem, they made sure that even with no skill I'm still a formidable opponent. The Wrath thingies had to face my, well, wrath and were wiped out without any damage to my precious self-esteem. Yay!

Note the parts "You always hit to please the action crowd and your skill determines damage to please the smaller RPG camp ..." and "... Needless to say, 15 points of damage are more then 8 points of damage but when you always hit, it's only a matter of time (and health potions)"

This is also very indicative for the Fallout 3 combat experience of Bethesdas simplified SPECIAL version were you indeed have some "skills" working in the background (which say only how much damage you do) but they have not so much meaning as you ALWAYS hit and do damage. Which means its only a matter of time ... and simpacks till a enemy in Fallout 3 bites the dust. May it be a death claw, Behemoth or any other creature. Frankly clubing a Behemoth with your fist is probably not the best way to go, but as said, talking about the game in General.

 

[Yazman]

You can, I set all my attributes to 1 when fiddling with the GECK and created an item that would do so.
I also refrained from putting points in weaponry skills, boosting up stuff like Barter and Speech, what I normally wouldn't use.

Keep in mind, this was all to squeeze some difficulty from the game, so far as I had played, Fallout 3 was one of the easiest gaming experiences I had ever had the "pleasure" of indulging myself.

The difficulty was on Very Hard, had some trouble early on, but once I reached level 5 everything became easy once again, decent Combat Armor, using the right drugs and the biggest knock against Fallout 3, being skillful during combat reduced the experience into one giant methodical crawl.
There was no difficulty in it at all, I just had to work combat correctly, dodge when right, use grenades at the appropriate moments, aim for the limbs. You might call this "tactics", but considering the pace of the game it was more like I was reacting right off the top of my head, instinctive action rather than premeditated action.

Too easy, all too easy, killed a Supermutant Master here or there with a Sledgehammer, bang in his arms and he can't do squat, get a good companion and everything is cheese.

The stats don't mean anything, the skills don't mean much beyond "You need 25 Lockpick to repair this door."

RPG? At this point I doubt it, RPG-lite? Not even, it ain't a RPG folks, pack up your bags, 1 Luck in SPECIAL means critical failures, nothing here, 1 Strength in SPECIAL means no weaponry, Fallout 3? Well I guess you can carry less. 1 Agility, oh, well I guess you can't use VATS as much!

Big deal, big deal, honestly, if the stats mean this little, then it means that no character is different, and if no character is different, what makes each "role" unique? Each character? I would say nothing, and if the possibility of a unique character doesn't exist, well then, where's that role that we put in the roleplaying?

Poof, it's gone.
Low stats need to cripple you, the question isn't the perspective, but rather, the fact that real time and Bethesda's overly cautious approach spawned a creature so fickle that it does not wish to suffer upon us a challenging experience.
Presumption! Insulting my and your intelligence.
How can you play it and not feel like a child, not feel like they're looking down upon you? You, who have defeated Fallout 1 on the hardest combat and game difficulty, yet now this simplicity? A shame.

By your criteria for RPGs, games like Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Ultima, et al are fickle and shameful too.

 

[Eyenixon]

Final Fantasy? Chrono Trigger? Yes.
Ultima? No.

Try getting a 4 Intelligence avatar to successfully cast a single average level spell in UIV-VI and see him fail, see him fail pathetically. Or watch as a low strength avatar does little to no damage to whatever he strikes, much to say of a low dexterity avatar who cannot strike a single creature with a ranged weapon.
The Ultima series, as it has held itself for two decades, does not cater to players who would wish themselves proficient at all abilities from the onset of an adventure. The avatar must work for his power.

He must apply himself.

Only through difficult combat, much death of fellow adventurers, resurrection, trials, dungeons, battling as a lowly figure, defeating only the most pathetic enemies, until he finds himself fit in experience to meditate at the shrines and bolster his abilities, will he prove powerful, even then, he faces difficulty.

What of Fallout 3? As soon as it begins, there is no challenge, the stats hold no meaning! Such slight difference in damage between low Small Guns and high Small Guns does not lend itself strongly to the idea of an increasingly talented individual in whichever field he has implied himself.

As the avatar struggles to grow and at last become powerful, the Fallout 3 player realizes that he is supreme as soon as he takes his first steps within the Vault. These trained security guards are nothing to a mere pup with little to no experience whatsoever!

 

[Per]

Yazman, don't quote entire posts if you're just going to put a single sentence at the bottom.

 

[Ashmo]

Responding to the original question:

FPP is to ISO/3PP as RT is to TB.

The idea behind FPP is "looking through your character's eyes". Obviously it's an imperfect system (real humans have peripheral view, smell and three-dimensional hearing), but that's just the current limitations of the technology, not inherent to the concept.

The idea behind isometric view or 3rd person perspective is seeing your character in relation to its surroundings in a way that wouldn't be possible with FPP (again, technological limitations).

In games like Tomb Raider the reason why FPP is insufficient is rather obvious (you can't see your legs in FPP and judging distances can be pretty hard).

In RPGs the reason lies in the player's expectations regarding the feel of the interaction: you expect having a crosshair to aim at stuff and you expect to hit that stuff if it is within the crosshair (or, if the guns aren't perfectly accurate, if it fills out the entire crosshair) while you shoot. If you swing your sword at point blank range and miss, the suspension of disbelief (or "immersion") vanishes in a puff of logic and it all comes apart at the seams.

In ISO/3PP you don't have that level of expectation, so it's okay if the other guy "dodges" or your character "misses", even if it's not entirely obvious from the animations. Even more so in TB.

The difference between RT and TB is gameplay. RT is good for getting things done quick, for surprising the player and for having a lot of shit blow up in the player's face to give him some free adrenaline.

TB is good for taking a step back and analysing the situation, trying out different tactics or laying down an overall strategy. That's why so many "hard strategy" games are turn based. Imagine playing Civilisation in real time -- you'd probably end up with something more closely resembling the Space Stage in Spore than with a real strategy game.

RTS games are a different issue altogether. The focus is very different from TBS games and unless you excel at lightspeed micromanagement you won't be able to do much beyond rushing and crossing your fingers if you want to play tactical. That's why the ongoing trend in RTS games is towards more combat and less base building (case in point: the early design of WarCraft 3 where base building was completely taken over by the AI and your job was raising armies and leading them to victory).

RPGs are turnbased not because of cosmetics, but because of principle. Roleplaying, unlike LARPing (although this is true for some forms of that too), is about analysing a situation and deciding how your character would act under the given circumstances. By definition, this can not be a real time process. Unless you're a machine, you can't possibly remember all your stats and those of your opponents and come up with an appropriate decision in a split-second.

This is why real-time RPGs, even non-virtual ones like LARPs, go to great lengths to hide the underlying mechanics or shift away from actual roleplaying to more direct interaction.

Hard RPGs (what most NMA regulars would think of as "true" RPGs) are therefore more abstract than Action RPGs (RT RPGs like, say, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, etc -- even though these are obviously widely spread across the entire spectrum). This doesn't make Action RPGs "worse", much like sports games or flight simulators aren't "worse" than eco sims or turn-based strategy games. It just means they are very different.

By definition, you can't have a Hard RPG in real time, much like you can't have an Action RPG be turn based. You could make one, but the result would be unplayable in the former case and downright boring in the latter.

With FPP vs ISO/3PP it's similar. You CAN have a Hard RPG in FPP (in fact, turn based FPP RPGs aren't entirely unheard of, they just weren't very successful), but if you make one, you'll violate a lot of expectations regarding its gameplay mechanics and thus alienate a lot of players. Action RPGs can swing both ways because there are less expectations involved in ISO/3PP.

Having a real-time FPP Hard RPG is pretty much the worst case scenario, though. Nobody would want to play that mess. The only way to make it playable would be cutting down on the mechanics and then it would cease to be a Hard RPG.

Essentially the problem is similar to the difference between arcade games and simulations. Hard RPGs are the simulations, Action RPGs the arcades. We wanted a flight simulator and what we got bore more resemblance to Asteroids. Sure, it may be a fun game, but it's not what we asked for.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well what you could do in Fallout was indeed playing the game as a "combat" based experience only. But of course since the game was not designed as such in the first place you obviously would miss a lot in the process. After if one wants to play a character like Spartakus he should not be surprised that hes not a "big" talker and that he solved more things with the sword [or in this the guns hes using] then anything. But what made Fallout a great game with this is that you had the "option" to play it that way. Even if you had a character very specialiced in combat, you still could do a lot with well written dialogues and had many options in certain important quest situtions were the answers would not feel "artifical" ( I dont know exactly how to explain it ... but when I say that dialogues in Bethesdas Fallout, feel very "stiff" you might know what I mean well almost unatural in that it doesnt really represent neither your characters opinion [eventually] or what a NPC now very likely would answer. And I dont mean the obviously bad written dialogue like with 3Dog or your dad and Eden. I mean in General, with either Moira and her "style" of talking which seems just to much out of place. People in the Capital wasteland seem to have a euphoric nature in general even the begars seem to add to that! Which have only one purpose anyway ... that you can give them water to raise your karma. What maybe could have added to the game if the one or other beggar would right away refused to take ANYTHIGN from you when he heard that you'r a canibal and slaver for example or doing something else extremly gross killing intentionaly a child would come in to my mind but since thats not possible ... )

That is though (sadly) what those at Bethesda dont like about the old Fallout games that you could "miss" something or block the outcome of a quest cause of wrong decisions and different stats, and decided to downgrade the characterdevelopment or better "specialication" in favour for a "doing-all-at-once" experience. Its better though compared to Oblivion, and you indeed have a lot more freedom in how to solve some issues compared to Bethesdas last game before Fallout 3.

But still its very easy for someone in Fallout 3 to make a battle hardnened character with the intelligence of Heisenberg and the silver-tongue of Socrates and still be very succesfull with combat without any issue. Even more so when you have a companion with you. Its very easy to have a maxed out character already before you reach level 13 in Fallout 3 thus becoming the "jack of all trades" but who is still almost succesfull in everything. For example since strength is almost a useless skill (in use with weapons) and more or less only affects how much you can carry. You still even with a ST of 1 can create a walking tank and wield a minigun/laser gatling with a lot of damage and no issues which would not have worked in Fallout 1/2 that way, even with a power armor that gave you +3/+4 you would only get a 5 maybe 6 in Strength with the improvements and considering that a power armor is not a everyday item in the Fallout world I can garantue you that such a low Strength will be a issue for someone obsessed with heavy weapons ... in fallout 3 thats no issue. How can a character with 1 in ST be a perfect minigun tank and call that meaningfull roleplaying? I dont see how.

This has as well something to do with First Person gameplay in my eyes (though its more about Bethesdas principle, First Person does not include bad written dialogues ...).

 

[Shattering Fast]

How can a character with 1 in ST be a perfect minigun tank and call that meaningfull roleplaying? I dont see how.

Well, I guess that would vary with your definition of meaningful roleplay. Are you a level-grinder or a story-builder? Different people get different things out of roleplaying games. Personally, I can think of no reason to build a character's stats "meaningfully" if the concept behind him or her isn't well thought-out.

In reality, though, a character in Fallout 3 couldn't roam the wastes with 1 STR and a minigun without incurring some penalities, be it their inability to wear the proper armor or carry a significant amount of battle spoils.

 

[Eyenixon]

In reality, though, a character in Fallout 3 couldn't roam the wastes with 1 STR and a minigun without incurring some penalities, be it their inability to wear the proper armor or carry a significant amount of battle spoils.

I don't understand, are you implying that there are actual penalties? The only penalty is decreased carry weight and even then it's completely manageable, in fact, it's completely and entire serviceable for carrying loot.

 

[Shattering Fast]

In reality, though, a character in Fallout 3 couldn't roam the wastes with 1 STR and a minigun without incurring some penalities, be it their inability to wear the proper armor or carry a significant amount of battle spoils.

I don't understand, are you implying that there are actual penalties? The only penalty is decreased carry weight and even then it's completely manageable, in fact, it's completely and entire serviceable for carrying loot.

That was the implication, yes. A Big Guns specialist with a low STR stat is going to have a tougher time than a Big Guns specialist with a moderate to high strength stat. It's common sense. Let's say that a high END remains a constant, and the character had the stats that would have been allocated to strength siphoned away to CHR, or something - any stat that they won't be making too much use of. They won't be able to carry as much loot (translation: they'll have to make 3 or 4 seperate trips to Fort Constantine to loot all of its treasures), and they won't be able to carry as much equipment (translation: they won't be able to carry as wide a selection of weapons as they otherwise could; they won't be able to weild a large gun and powered armor simultaneously without being more or less crippled when it comes to carrying any more weight). On top of that, a high STR stat can occasionally be used to coerce NPC's to your point of view.

So, yes, a low STR stat in Fallout 3 is going to have repurcussions. But, their significance depends entirely upon your priorities as a roleplayer. The same could be said of all stats, really.

 

[Eyenixon]

So, yes, a low STR stat in Fallout 3 is going to have repurcussions. But, their significance depends entirely upon your priorities as a roleplayer. The same could be said of all stats, really.

Their significance should be set in stone and not rely on the roleplayer.
This is why low stats in Fallout 1 or 2 had a definite negative impact that would affect nearly any type of character, it made sense, anyone with 1 Strength is always going to be a enormous pussy who couldn't steady a pistol, bad effects meant bad effects, no matter what kind of character you had, a low Strength diplomat was eventually going to suffer at some point because of his stats, and typically those instances were major, not being able to defend yourself when cornered for example.

So 1 Strength in Fallout 3 is somehow more significant to a Big Guns player because he won't be able to carry more Big Guns? Yes, it's common sense, but it's also infantile, that's something a baby thinks is clever. A Small Guns player should suffer as well, who fires a Magnum or a Sniper Rifle when they've got only 1 Strength? 1 Strength is equivalent to being imbued with the power of a frail geriatric senior citizen, there is no common sense in that at all.

I fail to see your argument, creating a unique role doesn't depend on what the player thinks a stat should do, the rules that are set in RPGs force a player to mold a character around those rules, otherwise they have no meaning whatsoever and that role ceases to be unique because there is no significance.

The stricter the rules and the more of an effect a stat's quantity imparts, the more possibilities there are available, it's the difference between ten big steps and ten little tippy toe shuffles.

In other words, the stat scale in Fallout 3 is absolutely tiny compared to Fallout 1 or 2's, more or less points in Fallout 1 or 2 had stronger effects, more or less points in Fallout 3 had much less noticeable effects.

 

[Crni Vuk]

How can a character with 1 in ST be a perfect minigun tank and call that meaningfull roleplaying? I dont see how.

Well, I guess that would vary with your definition of meaningful roleplay. Are you a level-grinder or a story-builder? Different people get different things out of roleplaying games. Personally, I can think of no reason to build a character's stats "meaningfully" if the concept behind him or her isn't well thought-out.

In reality, though, a character in Fallout 3 couldn't roam the wastes with 1 STR and a minigun without incurring some penalities, be it their inability to wear the proper armor or carry a significant amount of battle spoils.

I hardly would call that a "penalty". Its a effect yes. But a real penalty would be not beeing able to use a certain weapon cause well ... your just to weak. I mean the weight is not really a issue since ammunition does weight nothing. Same to stimpacks.


The thing is that the game does not give you penalties in a logical way [Just to make that clear we are not talking about realism].

What some should not forget as well that there was also a in Fallout 1/2 a difference between just only intelligence and Spech. As Intelligence made sure that you had something "meaningfull" to say but Spech somewhat that people would actualy "listen" to you in other words the rate of success. So the one representing a guy with knowledge but the other one a charismatic personality. Now not everyone who is charismatic is a genious and not everyone who knows everything can persuade everyone from his point of view or has the "social" skill of a very charismatic person. In Fallout 3 Intelligence almost is a garant for the succes of your answer. Regardless if the chance that the person actualy would listen to you is high or not, in other words if you have low or big charisma. I mean how can someone expect that with a CH of 1 but a INT of 10 anyone would listen to him? (I mean from a logical point of view) If one would imagine that a person with CH 1 and INT 10 more or less displays the character of Dexters from Dexter's Laboratory, that even if a genious is not taken serous by anyone in his surrounding.

This very contradicting to a meaningfull role playing in my eyes

 

[UniversalWolf]

FPP (versus 3rd PP of some kind, including isometric or isometric-esque) is the worst choice for a role-playing game. FPP, particularly Bethesda-style FPP, is a failed attempt to fool the player into thinking he is actually experiencing the locations and events of the games.

As reported on NMA, Emil Pagliarulo did an interview with The Escapist (www.escapistmagazine.com) in which he said about Bethesda's games: "you're not controlling that character, you are that character." This is a fundamental break with the role-playing game genre. In role-playing games there has always been a distinct separation between the player and the character.

Any sort of external perspective of the charater preserves this distinction, be it Fallout's isometric views, or Gothic's third-person views. This is crucial because, in addition to not being a role-playing game, a simulation that tries to convince the player he is actually present within the game world is doomed to failure. For starters, real people have peripheral vision, necks that aren't fixed, depth perception, and lots of other physical characteristics that aren't represented in a fake 3D environment projected to a flat rectagular screen.

More importantly, a third-person or isometric CRPG preserves the most important trait of P&P RPGs: the player is able to use his imagination to envision the character within game world. While playing Fallout, at no point do I believe I actually am the character. The game doesn't vainly try to convince me of that. Instead, I'm free to imagine the reality of the world and it's characters. The graphics are merely a medium to assist the imagination, rather than an attempt to supplant the imagination.