Editorial DAC: Exploring the Secrets of VATS

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Bethesda Softworks; Fallout 3

<p>... or "How Bethesda Set their Sights on the Lowest Common Denominator and Hit a Bullseye". Duck And Cover's Cimmerian Nights <a href="http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24326">explores the topic</a> in-depth.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When word came out that Bethesda had purchased the rights to Fallout in 2004, the news was received with mixed feedback. Initial responses ran the gamut, but beyond the acquisition of Fallout, little else was known at the time. Speculation ran that it was likely, given Bethesda&rsquo;s recent track record that the Fallout series would be entering new territory &ndash; most significantly from the standpoint of game design philosophy, and in turn how that philosophy would manifest itself in game mechanics, an early established and defining strong point of Fallout&rsquo;s gameplay that distinguished it as a cRPG heavyweight.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>While from a role-playing standpoint VATS must be looked at as a failure to capitalize on basic RPG concepts, it certainly doesn&rsquo;t spell the end for it. It&rsquo;s showcasing of over-the-top violence and gore certainly holds the attention of the wider market that Bethesda intended to reach. It should be interesting to see what modifications if any Obsidian can incorporate with their upcoming spin-off based on the same engine. Ultimately, it is Bethesda and it design philosophy (mass market appeal at the expense of RPG foundation) that will dictate the inclusion of this gimmick in future titles, or it&rsquo;s relegation to the scrap heap with other &ldquo;innovative&rdquo; cul-de-sacs.</p>
<p>Whether they see VATS as a success or not while be evident when future iterations of the series are released. But given the intent the original developers of Fallout had, and the RPG elements they employed to acheive that, and the foundation they built the series upon, VATS must be viewed as a the ill-conceived, gimmicky compromise it is.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>thanks to Cimmerian Nights!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.duckandcover.cx/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24326">Duck and Cover</a></p>

 

[Kingston]

Good article,

I'm surprised anyone still has the steam left to fight the good fight with their words (or however that quote went). I'd already forgotten how much Bethesda fucked up Fallout.

 

[Mister Arkham]

It's always nice to be reminded that DAC can still put out some decent content once in a while. Article could have used another editing pass, but it was conceptually sound and largely free of (overt) vitriol. Nice work all around.

 

[bhlaab]

Seems a bit like a pointless preaching to the choir article

 

[DraQ]

Seems a bit like a pointless preaching to the choir article
pointless preaching to the choir
pointless

:shock:






*codex vanishes in a puff of logic*

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Eh, not very good. While it touches some good, valid points (albeit kinda obvious to anyone who played the game - novelty tends to wear off after time, melee was overlooked, nerfed damage to compensate for being a sitting duck), it also is very vague ("lacks basic rpg concepts", "is the combat's main draw", appealing to some entity called decline lowest common denominator).

It also treats VATS as the combat system as a whole, instead of a screen where you select aimed shots (comparing the entire system of the previous games to VATS, as if you couldn't fight, use items, move, etc. out of vats - or as if you were forced to use it at all). Some of these critics should be directed at the real time style of playing instead of the VATS system.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

You know honestly, the impetus behind this arose out of a thread on VATS and KOC suggested I write something up rather than having to repeat our grievances over and over to newcomers. So, that's what I was trying to accomplish with this.
Once I got my hands dirty, I admit I found it difficult to contain the focus to VATS alone, but at the same time I wanted to keep it somewhat concise and on message. It would've gotten pretty unwieldy if I included combat as a whole.

Who knows what the fuck is going on mechanically behind FO3's RT combat. What is it? A straight FPS with a damage modifier based on skill? Is there more to it that that? There's no AP, no AC. It's futile to me to even try to examine something that's not there.

If I can muster the motivation, I was considering tackling other aspects down the line.

 

[poocolator]

While from a role-playing standpoint VATS must be looked at as a failure to capitalize on basic RPG concepts, it certainly doesn’t spell the end for it. It’s showcasing of over-the-top violence and gore certainly holds the attention of the wider market that Bethesda intended to reach.

... which confuses the hell out of me. VATS gore was terrible, and got boring very quickly. I can't believe there are people out there who get off to such stale violence. It's like scissoring the heads off of cardboard figures. Mods notwithstanding, the product Bethesda had deemed fit for release is sickeningly dull.

 

[KalosKagathos]

Nothing that hadn't been said before the game was even out. Why do people still care about that shitty game enough to write articles about it?

 

[poocolator]

Nothing that hadn't been said before the game was even out. Why do people still care about that shitty game enough to write articles about it?

It's the aftershock and confusion that still has some people bewildered. Kind of like wandering around in a confused daze after a nearby explosion.

 

[Yeesh]

One of the defining features of a PnP RPG is character skill over player skill... Mike Tyson (despite his intellectual shortcomings) should be able to play a character with the mental faculties of a Stephen Hawking, and succeed or fail based on those faculties, and not be limited by his own.

Yes, the other side of the equation is the one that always gets harped on ("My reflexes shouldn't MATTER!"), but it's nice to see an acknowledgement that this has to work both ways.

Now can anyone tell me how a game where an idiot (and I'm not calling Mike Tyson an idiot) could effectively play a character who survives by his wits alone is held up as the model to which RPGs should aspire, while at the same time having training wheels and a weak difficulty curve are considered selling out?

The game where an idiot can succeed as a pure INT character is called a simulation, not an RPG. It would be a hands-off affair, where the character does his own thing and makes his own choices. Ta-da, character skill over player skill. As soon as the player starts making choices for the character, the model breaks down. We don't really want the idiot to be able to win by his wits, do we? That doesn't sound like a challenging game...

Ironically Fallout’s initial appeal and success was based on a back-to-basics approach to old-school RPG fundamentals at a time when other franchises were bowing and bending to the trends du jour, in mostly futile attempts to stay relevant.

Really? Not the singular and delicious post-apocalyptic-by-way-of-the-50s setting? Not the fact that it was so gritty and bloody and gun-filled that all us youngsters immediately set it at the top of the gaming coolness pyramid? What was really thrilling us about Fallout was that the mechanics were so much like classic PnP RPGs? Strange that's not how I remember the appeal at all.

 

[Fomorian]

You're being unnecessarily pedantic about player skill over character skill. The success/fail at tasks based on his faculties is what's important. In every RPG your character is going to be directed in his actions by the player so of course player skill/intelligence is going to affect it to a degree. My character can be a suave diplomat with 10 charisma and maxed out speech skill and yet still choose retarded, confrontational speech options that lead to combat if I want him to. No one says that character skills in this instance are being nerfed because the character is only doing as I direct.

It's when you start allowing player skill to determine success/failure at a task rather than directing the character to complete tasks based on his skills alone that your model breaks down as in Fallout 3.

 

[DraQ]

You're being unnecessarily pedantic about player skill over character skill. The success/fail at tasks based on his faculties is what's important. In every RPG your character is going to be directed in his actions by the player so of course player skill/intelligence is going to affect it to a degree. My character can be a suave diplomat with 10 charisma and maxed out speech skill and yet still choose retarded, confrontational speech options that lead to combat if I want him to. No one says that character skills in this instance are being nerfed because the character is only doing as I direct.

It's when you start allowing player skill to determine success/failure at a task rather than directing the character to complete tasks based on his skills alone that your model breaks down as in Fallout 3.

This.

I've been pondering this "character skill over player skill" garbage for a long enough time to be able to say it's bull.

The point isn't deciding which should override which, the point is creating such system where such an override is impossible and character's and player's skill are both absolutely necessary and don't overlap.

 

[Yeesh]

You're being unnecessarily pedantic about player skill over character skill...

I'm being necessarily pedantic. I'm illustrating a definition pf CRPG that seeks to draw a hard line around the genre, with an unmistakable eye towards keeping/shoving certain games out of it. Pushed to its extremes, this conception leads not to pure RPGs but to simulations, which is not the intention but is the unavoidable effect.

Let me break it down very simply. What is the logical difference, in terms of player skill versus character skill, of these two potential outcomes?

1) A game contains a devilishly difficult logic puzzle that can be solved by a very smart player controlling an ostensibly very stupid character.

2) A game contains a difficult firefight that can be overcome by a skilled FPS gamer controlling a character who is ostensibly very bad at shooting.

If someone can clear this up for me, it would go a long way towards illuminating what people mean when they say the abilities of the character must dictate outcomes. It seems to me that there is no difference, but games featuring 1) are lauded and games featuring 2) are decried as not true CRPGs. And that's wacky.

The point isn't deciding which should override which, the point is creating such system where such an override is impossible and character's and player's skill are both absolutely necessary and don't overlap.

That sounds pretty challenging. Has a game actually achieved what you're talking about?

 

[DraQ]

The point isn't deciding which should override which, the point is creating such system where such an override is impossible and character's and player's skill are both absolutely necessary and don't overlap.

That sounds pretty challenging. Has a game actually achieved what you're talking about?

That's actually very simple.

You simply design a game so that proper input is crucial to even have chance of success, then, after the proper input is there, you check the skill for success.

Proper input can be anything depending on a game - from good battle tactics in both RT and TB games, to precise 'twitch' input in a game where the character is directly controlled. Hell, even Morrowind's rather rubish combat would be a good example, as it did apply the core principle right - you told the character what exactly you wanted him to do, skills determined success.

 

[Fomorian]

I'm being necessarily pedantic. I'm illustrating a definition pf CRPG that seeks to draw a hard line around the genre, with an unmistakable eye towards keeping/shoving certain games out of it. Pushed to its extremes, this conception leads not to pure RPGs but to simulations, which is not the intention but is the unavoidable effect.

Obviously I disagree wholeheartedly. The extremes of using only character skill to determine success/failure at distinct tasks do not lead to simulations.

Let me break it down very simply. What is the logical difference, in terms of player skill versus character skill, of these two potential outcomes?

1) A game contains a devilishly difficult logic puzzle that can be solved by a very smart player controlling an ostensibly very stupid character.

This depends. Is there a skill that can be used to resolve puzzles? If so then this is a clear case of player skill overwhelming character skill. If not which is invariably the case in cRPGs then this is no issue. It's simply intelligently using your character to overcome a challenge no different from deploying yourself properly to overcome a difficult fight or targeting the enemies in a well thought out order even though your guy has no real combat skills or experience and is mentally deficient.

2) A game contains a difficult firefight that can be overcome by a skilled FPS gamer controlling a character who is ostensibly very bad at shooting.

If your character's skills shouldn't allow him to hit the broadside of a barn while standing in it and your FPS skills can overcome the handicap then you have a clear example of player skill determining success or failure rather than character skill. If there is no skill for determining your character's ability with guns then this isn't a problem again but I can't think of many cRPGs that don't have weapon skills.

If someone can clear this up for me, it would go a long way towards illuminating what people mean when they say the abilities of the character must dictate outcomes. It seems to me that there is no difference, but games featuring 1) are lauded and games featuring 2) are decried as not true CRPGs. And that's wacky.

Well I'd say the key thing is having a skill to resolve an outcome and yet allowing for character skill at that task to be overcome by player skill. If there is no skill to test your character's ability at puzzles then it's really something the player must control, just as he must control tactics, or talking to the right NPCs, etc. because there is no skill to determine those outcomes nor should there be. If you have a skill that should determine that outcome but it can be overcome by a player's ability then you stop being an RPG.

I see where you're coming from with the simulation comments but I think you're assuming that to advocate the supremacy of character skill you must want everything in the game to be subordinated to character skill and that's just not the case. Just because I'm playing Crag Hack the retarded barbarian doesn't mean I want my character to be forced into acting like a retarded barbarian without any input from me.

 

[Fomorian]

That's actually very simple.

You simply design a game so that proper input is crucial to even have chance of success, then, after the proper input is there, you check the skill for success.

Proper input can be anything depending on a game - from good battle tactics in both RT and TB games, to precise 'twitch' input in a game where the character is directly controlled. Hell, even Morrowind's rather rubish combat would be a good example, as it did apply the core principle right - you told the character what exactly you wanted him to do, skills determined success.

This is an excellent definition of the divide between player skill and character skill in an RPG that I've been trying to explain.