Wilderness Search Realism for Fallout 3

[Wooz]

Not to mention FT is about the ONLY tactical squad game in which you can be shot through a wall...

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Not true. Though it's probably the only one where you can be shot through the wall without the wall being damaged.

 

[Akudin]

Hmmm, in the ***REAL*** world 50 Caliber machine guns can puch through brick walls and hurt people, not to mention Vietnam War era armored personnel carriers and things that would provide cover from small arms. But we won't go there. FT Combat system had its strong points, including the lstrong line of sight effect. It even attempted fire by unseen enemies (remember the primitive trench?) I truly hope that the F3 wil have the combat system of the FT. Also, a sniper fire would be devastating in F2, where a single round from nowhere will kill the main character, but in Fallout Tactics, onwe will die from sniper fire, the others will take cover best they can, trr to suppress the sniper with the available machine guns and will use the terrain advantage to maneuver close to the viper and take him/her down, as in ***true*** life. Of course, a GAUSS Rifle, would be a real nightmare, BUT there will still be some sort of saound since the projectile will be traveling at least a couple of machs. That would all be possible had we a better terrain playing surface - 3 D modding with cover and concealment affecting the likelihood of the shot, but alas, it's all heading for the first eprson shooter type of thing...

 

[Sander]

Hmmm, in the ***REAL*** world 50 Caliber machine guns can puch through brick walls and hurt people, not to mention Vietnam War era armored personnel carriers and things that would provide cover from small arms. But we won't go there. FT Combat system had its strong points, including the lstrong line of sight effect. It even attempted fire by unseen enemies (remember the primitive trench?) I truly hope that the F3 wil have the combat system of the FT. Also, a sniper fire would be devastating in F2, where a single round from nowhere will kill the main character, but in Fallout Tactics, onwe will die from sniper fire, the others will take cover best they can, trr to suppress the sniper with the available machine guns and will use the terrain advantage to maneuver close to the viper and take him/her down, as in ***true*** life. Of course, a GAUSS Rifle, would be a real nightmare, BUT there will still be some sort of saound since the projectile will be traveling at least a couple of machs. That would all be possible had we a better terrain playing surface - 3 D modding with cover and concealment affecting the likelihood of the shot, but alas, it's all heading for the first eprson shooter type of thing...

Do you even read what you are posting?
Fallout isn't a wargame or a tactical simulation, it's a roleplaying game. In fact, it's a roleplaying designed to be about the lone wanderer through the wastes, not the squad leader of a pack of mercenaries.

Fucking hell.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

FFS, go play Jagged Alliance.

 

[Akudin]

Sander, every CRPG I've seen has a tactical band. What else do you consider a party of about six adventurers armed and equipped to crawl through whatever the game master throws at them in ANY role-playing game. Name one RPG where combat takes a third to role play and puzzle solving? But I agree with you, Fallout IS about a lone wanderer, unlike the other RPG's.

 

[Sarcastro]

Name one RPG where combat takes a third to role play and puzzle solving?

Name one RPG which puts as great emphasis on combat realism as you suggest.
Or maybe not... You know what? Fuck it, you're right - realism is the shit. And not just as far as guns go. To hell with stimpaks, we need a REAL wound system. With bleeding and shit. That shouldn't be a problem if we use professional medical software.

You just need to get the existing survey data, already digitized, and translate it into Fallout format for a maore challenging and realistic gaming experience.

Oh hell yeah. And why should we stop here? Wouldn't it be awesome for the character to, like, develop cancer? Or osteoporosis? Or provide a challenging gaming experience by being born with an incurable genetic disease? Also the effects of radiation exposure were portrayed in a lame way - anything less than vomiting with blood, severe burns and hair falling off won't do. And wheelchairs. Fallout needs wheelchairs. Seriously.

 

[Sander]

Sander, every CRPG I've seen has a tactical band. What else do you consider a party of about six adventurers armed and equipped to crawl through whatever the game master throws at them in ANY role-playing game. Name one RPG where combat takes a third to role play and puzzle solving?

Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, several of the Ultima games.
That's not to say that tactical combat isn't important, but that's not even remotely what a cRPG is about.

 

[Akudin]

Sander: Of course, CRPG's are not about combat, but realistic portrayal of combat and its effects will shape the reality in the RPG world.
Congrats, Sarcastro, you have just arrived at how the military role-plays. With regards to cancer and aging, none of players characters would live that long. During WW-II it was common experience for a soldier to get injured in 1941-1942 be in the hospitals for a year or two and go back into action in 1943-1944, if only we had stimpacs or the D&D Clerics, what fun war would be! Incidentally, Fallout obviously exists in a different universe in which there is Radaway, which is probably more responsible for the Fallout being possible than anything else. ***Real World*** humanity dicovered as a result of Chernobyl experience that it has no way of treating radiation sickness. Doctors from all over the world went there to treat the sick and to test all of the radiation sickness therapies at their disposal that they were working on. Bone marrow transplant was high on the list of hoped for treatmets. The shocking discovery for the medical professionals was that NONE of the therapies proved to be effective against radiation damage. People either recovered on their own or they didn't. There is also one survivor from a nukesub accident, where he and 30 others worked on an unshielded reactor to repair the clogged cooling system. Everyone died within 2 weeks, but he survived, having lost most of his skin on the hands, arms, chest and face from burns. It was in 1960's. It took him about 2 years to recover from the burn damage, but he made medical history by not dying from radiation, not developing any cancer (may have had leukimia,I am not sure) and he lived well into 1990's. Again, RPG does not need to reflect real life to be great, but certain realities of life are so stark that they wil shape the experience of the RPG game world and play at the most fundamental level. An accurate rendition of wilderness travel and firearms combat is not an endall be all, and it certainly is not easy, but it will add greatly to the quality and complexity of the game. A game like FT or BG, where the player rally controls a band of adventurers can even allow a realistic approach to traume and combat effects without killing the gameplay too much.

 

[Sander]

You are missing the point. A roleplaying game is a *game*. First and foremost, anything you add must not only fit the design but bring something useful to enhance the playing experience to the game. A 1000-yard sniper shot does nothing but frustrate and is hence *useless*. Implementing military squad tactics in a game about a lone wanderer is equally useless.

 

[Sorrow]

I don't like the realistic travel idea, but I would love to see optional realistic combat rules, that would replace combat difficulty settings.

Name one RPG which puts as great emphasis on combat realism as you suggest.

Cyberpunk 2020? The Riddle of Steel? Grim & Gritty?

More emphasis on combat realism = more emphasis on roleplaying, diplomacy and stealth.
Realistic wounds make people want to avoid combat and seek more peaceful solutions or use more clever tactics.

 

[Akudin]

Agreed, RPGs are GAMES and not reality, however, if you look at any CRPG, whether BG or the Fallout series, the only way to develop your charcater is through "experience points" and those get accumulated via COMBAT, not to mention all the loot and gear taken off the dead enemies. So, all popular RPGs are wargames at heart. This is emphasized in CRPGs due to the cyber medium's natural limitation of role play and interaction. That's why Fallout Tactics was more of a CRPG than people would think (based on the one-way interaction and character development and storyline) and Fallout 2 was weaker as an RPG, despite its strong emphasis on being non-linear. Fallout ONE had the best balance of RPG elements. Surviving combat was tougher, none of the areas for exploration seemed generic (the way some areas semed in Fallout 2). The element that made the difference was that character was pushed by the waterchip and later on by the supermutant threat. Fallout two would have benefited if there was a timetable and the Enclavewould have actively pursued the chosen one. In THAT sense BG2 was stronger in that bad guys interfered with the player. I am not a game designer or a computer programmer, but given all other things that CRPGs can do, I don't think that it would be that hard to have the game respond more actively to the player - The player character shows up at the tavern and the bad guys know that he is in town and bad guys get encountered on the street. Also, you can have a more powerful party pursue the player, following the player's trail and if the player tarries about any one area for too long, he will end up encountering the bad guys next time s/he camps out. This is not 1000 yard ambushes or realistic combat, is it? So, why are CRPGs so passive when it comes to the opposing force?

 

[Sander]

Agreed, RPGs are GAMES and not reality, however, if you look at any CRPG, whether BG or the Fallout series, the only way to develop your charcater is through "experience points" and those get accumulated via COMBAT, not to mention all the loot and gear taken off the dead enemies.

Yeah, 'cause that's totally what you have to do in Fallout.
Bullshit.

So, all popular RPGs are wargames at heart.

Eh, no, they aren't. They are *role-playing games* at heart. Often, playing a role involves combat, and often this is solid tactical combat. This does not at all make it a combat-game, though, let alone a wargame.
Remember, you could finish Fallout without fighting a single battle.

This is emphasized in CRPGs due to the cyber medium's natural limitation of role play and interaction. That's why Fallout Tactics was more of a CRPG than people would think (based on the one-way interaction and character development and storyline) and Fallout 2 was weaker as an RPG, despite its strong emphasis on being non-linear.

...
You're a fucking retard.
Get a goddamn clue, butch, because I've had it with you. Really, I can't stand this uneducated *bullshit* you've been spouting since you came here. You have *no* clue as to what an RPG is even though it's been discussed more than once throughout your coming here.
Get this: combat is *not* an essential part of an RPG. *The ability to choose to play your character how you want to play it is.* And since choices are absolutely meaningless without consequences, add consequences to that. *that* is what a roleplaying game is, not a fucking combat simulator. Tactics had almost no choices and even fewer meaningful consequences, so it is absolutely shit as an RPG. Happily for us *it never pretended to be one*.
Fallout 2, however, is very strong in the consequences and choices bit ('though less so in setting), and is hence a very good RPG. Fallout was a better game due to coherency in design.

Fallout ONE had the best balance of RPG elements. Surviving combat was tougher, none of the areas for exploration seemed generic (the way some areas semed in Fallout 2). The element that made the difference was that character was pushed by the waterchip and later on by the supermutant threat.

...
You are judging how much Fallout 2 is a roleplaying game by its difficulty and the urgency? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? Those elements have nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, to do with roleplaying. They are elements of the game, but don't reflect on how much of a roleplaying game it is.
Fuck.

Fallout two would have benefited if there was a timetable and the Enclavewould have actively pursued the chosen one. In THAT sense BG2 was stronger in that bad guys interfered with the player.

I'll repeat this yet again: *what the fuck does this have to do with roleplaying*?

I am not a game designer or a computer programmer,

Yeah, that much is obvious alright.

but given all other things that CRPGs can do, I don't think that it would be that hard to have the game respond more actively to the player - The player character shows up at the tavern and the bad guys know that he is in town and bad guys get encountered on the street. Also, you can have a more powerful party pursue the player, following the player's trail and if the player tarries about any one area for too long, he will end up encountering the bad guys next time s/he camps out. This is not 1000 yard ambushes or realistic combat, is it? So, why are CRPGs so passive when it comes to the opposing force?

That's a design choice. Again: this has nothing to do with how much of a roleplaying game it is. Also, your statements that stuff like that doesn't happen is also false. There were the bounty hunters coming after you if you killed children in Fallout 1, or the pals of the bandits you could kill in Fallout 2.
And then there were the immense consequences of your actions throughout *both* games *constantly*.

Also, how the fuck do you expect the two antagonist parties in Fallout 1 and 2 to track down and hunt down someone they have *no knowledge whatsoever* of throughout the games?

 

[Sorrow]

Agreed, RPGs are GAMES and not reality, however, if you look at any CRPG, whether BG or the Fallout series, the only way to develop your charcater is through "experience points" and those get accumulated via COMBAT, not to mention all the loot and gear taken off the dead enemies. So, all popular RPGs are wargames at heart. This is emphasized in CRPGs due to the cyber medium's natural limitation of role play and interaction. That's why Fallout Tactics was more of a CRPG than people would think (based on the one-way interaction and character development and storyline) and Fallout 2 was weaker as an RPG, despite its strong emphasis on being non-linear.

No. Fallouts usually reward chosing peaceful solutions to problems with more XP than using violence.

Fallout ONE had the best balance of RPG elements. Surviving combat was tougher, none of the areas for exploration seemed generic (the way some areas semed in Fallout 2). The element that made the difference was that character was pushed by the waterchip and later on by the supermutant threat. Fallout two would have benefited if there was a timetable and the Enclavewould have actively pursued the chosen one.

I partially agree here. IMO, there should be a time limit in F2 after which the Enclave would release the virus and everyone would die.

In THAT sense BG2 was stronger in that bad guys interfered with the player. I am not a game designer or a computer programmer, but given all other things that CRPGs can do, I don't think that it would be that hard to have the game respond more actively to the player - The player character shows up at the tavern and the bad guys know that he is in town and bad guys get encountered on the street. Also, you can have a more powerful party pursue the player, following the player's trail and if the player tarries about any one area for too long, he will end up encountering the bad guys next time s/he camps out.

Frankly, the implementation of active enemies in BG2 was horrible - enemy parties/guards popping out of nowhere, cutscenes, during which enemies attacked someone and PC could do nothing just because developers wanted someone killed/cursed. It was horrible, and annoying.

So, why are CRPGs so passive when it comes to the opposing force?

Because the "AI" is too dumb and scripters don't have enough time.

 

[Akudin]

Sander, as a conosseur I can appreciate a good RPG. Any RPG needs a story in which characters participate. Tactics had a stronger storyline than F2. Good RPG also needs conflict. Without pressure there is no motion forward in the story, and exploration and character development without limitation turns an RPG experience into a Sim City game where you accrue, build and customize your character. F2 was weak because it reduced conflict resolution to errands running between parties to make the deal happen. Tactics may not have been considered a CRPG, but it was - players had a choice in their development and there were consequences to their action, granted, actions were restricted to combat patrols, but it still provided an RPG experience. Role Playing is about portraying a character, and you had plenty of opportunity to stay in character in Tactics as well, as much as a CRPG would allow. You tend to ovremphasize choice and consequences over conflict and storyline. You need a strong story before you can have a good RPG session.

Sorrow: I know that BG has limitations. I think that a good storyline will make the AI seem more proactrive and more intelligent and will give the players an illusuon of chopice and non-linearity, if you script it well enough. I think PLANESCAPE and F1 had strongest scripts (meaning sub plots, sideplots, and parallel plots). Not just throwing a map to explore, but tying everything into a story and making a coherent narrative of it. And, yes, I stand corrected, I recall F2 giving experience point awards for peaceful resolution.

 

[GatewaysToAnnihilation]

Wasn't this about travelling?

 

[Akudin]

Yes, it was. I wanted more realistic wilderness exploration for F3, and the almighty Sander here decreed that this is impossible given the state of modern technology, which I find hard to believe, with all the virtual reality first person shooter games and te humongous amounts of processing power that it takes up. All I was suggesting was a better interface design. If you have any ideas, do pitch in.
In any event, if a more realistic travel interface is not possible, and the AI is too dumb, then storyline and scripting is the way to go. I still would LOVE to see realistic topography and exploration in any CRPG, esp Fallout.

 

[Sander]

Sander, as a conosseur I can appreciate a good RPG. Any RPG needs a story in which characters participate. Tactics had a stronger storyline than F2.

Fo2 has a relaitvely poor storyline, but Tactics did as well. Tactics was just a series of throwing one hosilte group at you after another, with the variation coming only from the type of group. The very ending was somewhat better, though, but also clearly showed the complete lack of character choice consequences.

Good RPG also needs conflict.

No, any good game has a conflict. Conflictless games are completely useless. And if you think Fallout 2 has no conflict...hah!

Without pressure there is no motion forward in the story, and exploration and character development without limitation turns an RPG experience into a Sim City game where you accrue, build and customize your character.

Bullshit. For one, Fallout 2 doesn't even have unlimited exploration and character development.

Second, even if it did, that does not make it a poor RPG, as long as you can play a role you want.

Third, the character development in any other game is just limited by a purely arbitrary level cap, which is pretty goddamned irrelevant and the dumbest way of judging an RPG I've ever heard about.

Fourth, Fallout 2 and most other games also practically limit character development, if not theoretically, purely by the available experience (and equipment) you can gain. Once (if) you reach 'top level' in, say, Baldur's Gate (2), Fallout,

Fifth, you are actually advocating *limiting choices* to make it a better RPG. In other words, you are telling me that a game that limits the choices you can make to play a role is a better RPG than one that doesn't. Which is ass-tarded.

Sixth, unlimited character development only devolves into 'sims' games if the player *wants* it to. Fallout 2 never became a 'reach as high a level as possible' game to me or most others who played it.

Seventh, *urgency* behind a storyline is completely irrelevant to whether or not you can play different roles. It is an element present (or not) in *any* type of game and reflects at most on how you play the game. It does not in any way reflect on the type of game, and it certainly isn't an inherent element of 'RPG'.

Eighth, Baldur's Gate (2) had no urgency behind its storyline whatsoever. You could spend all the time you wanted just running around doing absolutely nothing. Any urgency you felt was as much bullshit as the messages you got from Hakunin throughout Fallout 2.

F2 was weak because it reduced conflict resolution to errands running between parties to make the deal happen.

*sigh*
Did you even *play* the game? The game was filled with role-defining choices. Many, many, many choices and lots of consequences that allow to *play your role* which is *exactly* what RPGs are about. They are not about strong storylines or limited conflict resolution (and I really don't see how you can criticise Fallout 2 for that but praise Tactics).

Tactics may not have been considered a CRPG, but it was - players had a choice in their development and there were consequences to their action, granted, actions were restricted to combat patrols, but it still provided an RPG experience. Role Playing is about portraying a character, and you had plenty of opportunity to stay in character in Tactics as well, as much as a CRPG would allow. You tend to ovremphasize choice and consequences over conflict and storyline. You need a strong story before you can have a good RPG session.

Did you even read anything I wrote?
Are you this much of a retard or just a poor troll?
A storyline can be good or bad regardless of the roleplaying opportunities. A good roleplaying game allows you to play *whatever character you want*. And for such a choice to be meaningful, it needs *consequences* otherwise you're just performing randomly with unimportant results.
That's what Tactics had. There were barely any choices, except 'do I do this extra objective or not?' and the conseuqences were non-existant outside of equipment/party member selection. Who, also, were pretty goddamned irrelevant.
Calling Tactics an RPG is moronic at best.

Sorrow: I know that BG has limitations. I think that a good storyline will make the AI seem more proactrive and more intelligent and will give the players an illusuon of chopice and non-linearity, if you script it well enough. I think PLANESCAPE and F1 had strongest scripts (meaning sub plots, sideplots, and parallel plots). Not just throwing a map to explore, but tying everything into a story and making a coherent narrative of it. And, yes, I stand corrected, I recall F2 giving experience point awards for peaceful resolution.

Unlike, I don't know, Tactics or Baldur's Gate 2 (which had almost no peaceful solutions).

EDIT:

Yes, it was. I wanted more realistic wilderness exploration for F3,

'Realistic wilderness exploration' is hardly the same as what you were advocating.

and the almighty Sander here decreed that this is impossible given the state of modern technology, which I find hard to believe, with all the virtual reality first person shooter games and te humongous amounts of processing power that it takes up.

Oh, for fuck's sake.
I actually know what I'm talking about. You are just spouting out of your ass and the only argument you've given is 'it can be done!!111111' Which is bullshit. Get a fucking clue and do some goddamn research.
You fail to put anything in context of Fallout, like the humongous scale.

All I was suggesting was a better interface design. If you have any ideas, do pitch in.

Interface? What the fuck does this have to do with an interface?

In any event, if a more realistic travel interface is not possible,

Oh, wait, you don't know what the word interface means. More proof of your lack of knowledge.

and the AI is too dumb,

AI? What does this have to do with this? Or do you again not know what this means?

then storyline and scripting is the way to go.

...
Did you just actually say that you'd prefer 'wilderness travel' of a storlyine and solid scripting?

I still would LOVE to see realistic topography and exploration in any CRPG, esp Fallout.

That would be neat, but again, *completely unfeasible*. Especially with the scale that is Fallout.

 

[Akudin]

Sander: In the real world time and geography are the limiting factors. You can make them so in a CRPG as well. Fallout One did with the Waterchip. I completed F2 when it first came out and did not die once. By the Interface I mean how the world is presented in the game - what the map looks like, what you can do on it. If you have an available digital topographic survey for the area where F3 will take place. You can have the computer modify it to make it look post apocalyptic by sustituting one terrain type forn the other or making acertain percentage of buildings ruined etc. It's an algorithm function, not designer's elbow grease. And you can limit it only to certain areas of interest if the scale won't allow.
Also in PNP gaming the human GM makes the decision and effectively runs the opposing force. In the CRPG that behavior of the opposing force is either enacted by the "AI" or the software OR with the scripting and storyline. In the F2 enclave waited until the Chosen One came to get the Geck. In the F1 the supermutants did not wait for the Vault Dweller to reach the vats but moved out and seized areas. And if you can't have the AI cook it up on the fly, you need to write it into the game's script.

 

[Sander]

Sander: In the real world time and geography are the limiting factors. You can make them so in a CRPG as well. Fallout One did with the Waterchip. I completed F2 when it first came out and did not die once.

That's a point of either difficulty, or your playing style.
Either way, not in any way a hallmark of any RPG.

By the Interface I mean how the world is presented in the game -

Yeah, that's not what an interface is.

what the map looks like, what you can do on it. If you have an available digital topographic survey for the area where F3 will take place. You can have the computer modify it to make it look post apocalyptic by sustituting one terrain type forn the other or making acertain percentage of buildings ruined etc. It's an algorithm function, not designer's elbow grease. And you can limit it only to certain areas of interest if the scale won't allow.

Do you have any idea of...well....anything pertaining alogirhtms?
Saying 'just have the computer do it' *doesn't fucking work*.
Jesus H. Christ you'd think you'd know that after having it pounded into your head for 20-odd posts.

Also in PNP gaming the human GM makes the decision and effectively runs the opposing force. In the CRPG that behavior of the opposing force is either enacted by the "AI" or the software OR with the scripting and storyline.

Here's a thought: AI is not a substitute for scripting or a storyline. AI is not some magical fix that makes things happen.

YET A-FUCKING-GAIN: go educate yourself on the subjects you're talking about. *You do not know what you are talking about*. Educate yourself, then come back. Your cluelessness is only annoying and obstructing.

In the F2 enclave waited until the Chosen One came to get the Geck.

Ooh, here's a thought: that's a *conscious choice* on the part of the design. It has jack shit to do with 'AI'.
Also, here's another thought: how the fuck do you suppose they search out the 'Chosen One' *when they don't even bloody well know about him*. The Enclave does not know about the Chosen One at all, until he blows up their oil rig. They really, really don't. Think about it, buck-o.

In the F1 the supermutants did not wait for the Vault Dweller to reach the vats but moved out and seized areas.

Ehm, yeah, that's a scripted event designed to create urgency. That's neat, but, again: not a hallmark of an RPG.

And if you can't have the AI cook it up on the fly, you need to write it into the game's script.

An AI can't just cook up a storyline on the fly. *Any* conflict in RPGs is scripted.

Again: get a clue, or stop talking.