Community Bethesda developer on the FO fans reaction

[Greenskin13]

Where's the dining cart?

some might refer to that as meta-gaming... but i shot metzger in the nuts on general principle after springing Vic with diplomacy too.

I took the ol' spiked nuckles to his eyes. Those things lasted me a long time. But yeah, I couldn't leave half the Den alive. I just felt like the Great Crusader of the Waste.

 

[mr. lamat]

.223 and the sawn-off. i'm very retro.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Again, Fallout is all about options, and a tactical combat model to me is important.

But how can one have tactics with only one unit under one's command?

To me it makes sense that i cannot directly control NPCs in a CRPG that isn't primarily a dungeon crawler. They're Non Playable Characters for a reason.

The number of choices that leaves is very limited and by a strict definition none of those choices even come under the heading of tactics.

Note that there are various things you can work with. You can assign different behaviouristic patterns to characters, like before. You can use hotkeys for individual or group actions which cannot be controlled via suggestions in dialogue, like Take Cover, Use Suppresion Fire, Run To, etc. You can add the ability for characters to crouch and go prone. You can also have NPCs fully use the SPECIAL system as well, so instead of just getting better at some skills, make them gain Perks as well. You can implement a line of sight like that of Tactics.

To me, changing or adding these things gives me more tactics to use. You could ask, "But why go trough all that trouble when you can just give full control of the NPCs?". But then again, why should you control NPCs? The idea of controlling them goes against their purpose and namesake. NPCs are supposed to simulate personalities, which goes sky high the minute i control all their actions. And Fallout is not exactly meant to be a party-based game; party-based mechanics work and make sense in dungeon crawlers, not here.

Even from a realistic standpoint (something many people, for some odd reason, talk about when talking of videogames), in a combat situation, a commanding officer does not have full control over his soldiers. They survive by his knowledge and planning in battle, not because he 'possessed' all his units in the field and did what them what he wanted.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

it took eight threads, but there are actually some good/decent ideas being discussed on the bethesda boards now... the odd twelve year-old does still pop in with their 'ideas' (which apparently i'm NOT allowed to make fun of... three warnings already) but the discussion has become interesting.

You know, I was thinking about the so-called Fallout fans who want Fallout 3 to be more like GTA, Final Fantasy, or whatever the game of the month is. These people are most likely sure sales. They really don't care what they want. They merely right whatever trend is dropped in front of them at the time. They'd buy Fallout 3 no matter what the game was like, so you really don't have to worry about pleasing them.

 

[mr. lamat]

i don't think bethesda would make a game for those people though. they want everything under the sun, plus some, and honestly wouldn't be pleased if you couldn't jack cars as a 40dd hookerboot wearing fourteen year-old hentai chick. would they buy it just because it carried the name? doubtful... but then again, i'm not sure if bethesda makes games for the easily amused or extremely patient. i got bored because i couldn't find a story, others enjoyed picking flowers.

maybe that's what fallout3 needs, a warrior path, a diplomat path, a science/repair path, a thief path and a florist path?

things have calmed down a lot over the past two days. it'll be interesting to see what develops.

 

[Arcadian Del Sol]

wow, it sure is easy to get people worked up. I have a better perspective now as to the "OMG TEH BETHESDA ARE TO RUIN TEH GAMEZ" debate.

The conclusion being: you either lemming along with the anger, or get stampeded by it. I beg apologies for espousing an unpopular point of view.

By way of fence mending, I offer: BETHESDA POISONS KITTENS!!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

wow, it sure is easy to get people worked up. I have a better perspective now as to the "OMG TEH BETHESDA ARE TO RUIN TEH GAMEZ" debate.

The conclusion being: you either lemming along with the anger, or get stampeded by it. I beg apologies for espousing an unpopular point of view.

By way of fence mending, I offer: BETHESDA POISONS KITTENS!!

Yeah, that attempt might have worked like 9 pages ago.

 

[Reklar]

wow, it sure is easy to get people worked up. I have a better perspective now as to the "OMG TEH BETHESDA ARE TO RUIN TEH GAMEZ" debate.

The conclusion being: you either lemming along with the anger, or get stampeded by it. I beg apologies for espousing an unpopular point of view.

By way of fence mending, I offer: BETHESDA POISONS KITTENS!!

Taking on the role of martyr in a community that doesn't care about your opinion one way or another is rather self-defeating don't you think? Try posting something other than nonsensical spam and perhaps people will take you seriously, and maybe even consider you something other than an attention-hungry troll.

I concur with Role-Player's posts regarding NPC control and tactical combat. Simply because every generic RPG-labeled game on the market for the past five years has had controllable party NPCs doesn't mean it is required for tactical combat. Every situation in Fallout had various approaches whether they were obvious or not and simply because those approaches did not occur to every player does not mean they did not exist. And for those who are unfamiliar with the meaning of tactics, I provide the following definition available from Dictionary.com:

tac·tics
n.

1. a. (used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.
b. (used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.

It would seem apparent to me that what Role-Player, like myself, is referring to is definition number one b or two, which clearly states what tactical combat is comprised of and does not require a plural, in other words, more than one character/person. That being said, it should be evident to those who have heretofore either misunderstood or ignored the position taken by those Fallout fans who believe the turn-based combat in Fallout is tactical, regardless of the fact you do not control your NPC party members. If this does not stir thought in the detractors minds though perhaps one question will. Do you believe it would be realistic for a player to be able to control Dogmeat in either Fallout or Fallout 2?

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

 

[Eldar]

Personally, I didn't have any problem with the bulk of your post, Arcadian. I just cringe when someone says, "it's just a game." Of course it's a game! If it were a basket weaving sample, I wouldn't care about it. I'm a gamer. I talk about games.

As far as giving Bethesda a chance and seeing what they do with the license... we've never had a choice about that in the first place.

As far as the controllable NPCs go, I prefer complete party control. I'll live with AI controlled NPCs as long as they don't act like complete morons. I don't want my thief bashing repeatedly against a locked door trying to get to the trapped chest he magically sees on the other side.

For all of it's other sins, and I'll be the martyr by telling the plain truth, it has a lot of them, ToEE got the party and combat right. I want a party I control in turn based mode with an overhead perspective. Oh, and I want a party, or at least the option of one. The NPCs in Fallout weren't all that bad. At least after you figured out what crazy think they tended to do, like shooting full auto at the bad guy standing on the other side of you.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Party control would ruin Fallout because it would go from being a CRPG with multiple solutions to every instance of a problem to the multiheaded, multiarmed everything-man. It's something that's great for dungeon crawlers, but pretty much sucks for a CRPG trying to do more.

There's problems such as whether or not to let them level up like a player. If you allow that, then you have an entire party as good as the Vault Dwellers or Chosen Ones in the world - super skilled and super buffed. If you don't allow it, how lame would it be in combat when you're really kick ass, and then have to control two or three crappy wimps? If you do control them and do advance them, then you have the problem of charisma becoming uber because that determines how many Chosen Ones you get in the party. Since they're all advanced similar to the player, then the higher the charisma score, the better the set of skill you have maxed are.

It's much better to just have AI controlled NPCs with a decent AI *and* a lot of feedback on what they're doing. If AI BOB likes to burst you and the enemies, make him say crazy shit a lot to indicate that he's a friggin' loon. Otherwise, make sure the AI is good enough to know when the player is in the burst cone and have it either move to a better spot to fire OR just simply have it fire a single shot.

 

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Personally, I didn't have any problem with the bulk of your post, Arcadian. I just cringe when someone says, "it's just a game." Of course it's a game! If it were a basket weaving sample, I wouldn't care about it. I'm a gamer. I talk about games.

Maybe thats the problem - I wasn't trying to say that. I wasn't saying that nobody had a right to post about games, or that being passionate about something is a bad thing. What I was trying to say is that there is something universally haplessa bout putting a cart in front of a horse. Bethesda really hasn't shown us a great deal by way of design proposals, and I think its a little early to start throwing fruit. I'm not saying they WONT botch things up; I'm saying we should save up our fruit for when they actually do.

As far as giving Bethesda a chance and seeing what they do with the license... we've never had a choice about that in the first place.

You and your wallet ALWAYS have a choice.

 

[AlanC9]

There's problems such as whether or not to let them level up like a player. If you allow that, then you have an entire party as good as the Vault Dwellers or Chosen Ones in the world - super skilled and super buffed. If you don't allow it, how lame would it be in combat when you're really kick ass, and then have to control two or three crappy wimps?

Sounds like the FO1 endgame. There's the Vault Dweller in Hardened Power Armor and wielding a Plasma Rifle, and there are the targets. AI control doesn't matter, except that I'd make them run and hide if any of the bad guys had a minigun.

I don't quite see why combat party control would necessarily ruin the multiple-solution aspect. Just don't give the NPCs any noncombat abilities.

Edit: Nevertheless, I still prefer uncontrolled.

 

[Eldar]

Fair enough, Arcadian. And I will vote with my wallet on Fallout 3.

As for party control, a bit off topic, I'm like Alanc9. I prefer party control, but I've enjoyed a lot of ai controlled games. I think NWN is one of the reasons I'm leery of it.

 

[triCritical]

Hell, FO doesn't even need joinable NPC's. I really believe party control is a bad idea, like St. P FO does not focus on combat. If that is the case, then it will surely lose the aspect that made it truly different from the other clones labeled r34l RPGER!

EDIT, the only reason FO had joinable NPC's is to help out weaker characters toward the beginning of the game. This was further bastardized in FO2, with talking deathclaws, SM and ROBOTS! How lame, keep it real...

 

[triCritical]

Sounds like the FO1 endgame. There's the Vault Dweller in Hardened Power Armor and wielding a Plasma Rifle, and there are the targets. AI control doesn't matter, except that I'd make them run and hide if any of the bad guys had a minigun.

Well mainly because the JNPC's really were not suppose to live. Seriously! They were meant to be there to help you early on, nothing more. That was the design, like it, or not. As for me, I dislike it, since it plays much better as a single person game.

Actually one thing they can learn from Morrowind, is to have JNPC help to be few and far between, and only for short periods of time. This is the wasteland afterall, not some high fantasy DnD adventure.

 

[Volourn]

"Well mainly because the JNPC's really were not suppose to live"

Really, outside the worst npc ever tm, Dogmeat; I ahd no problem keeping FO npcs alive through to the end game.

I think Fo needs joinable npcs or it hurts its role-playing aspects a lot. That said, it should NOT have controllable henchmen. Period.

 

[Voss]

You and your wallet ALWAYS have a choice.

It's kind of like telling someone that they didn't have to die after you've already shot them, isn't it?

Or to be less extravagant. You don't like mayo on burgers. If the restaurant puts mayo on their burgers, you don't buy them. Wouldn't it be better to tell them (and have them listen) not to put mayo on the burger before they make it?

 

[plin]

fucking shita asassasasa

 

[triCritical]

"Well mainly because the JNPC's really were not suppose to live"

Really, outside the worst npc ever tm, Dogmeat; I ahd no problem keeping FO npcs alive through to the end game.

Why do you always extrapolate your situation to the entire world? I have seen people intimate with the development say on more then one occasion that they NPC's were an early crutch never intended to live.

 

[plin]

"Well mainly because the JNPC's really were not suppose to live"

Really, outside the worst npc ever tm, Dogmeat; I ahd no problem keeping FO npcs alive through to the end game.

Why do you always extrapolate your situation to the entire world? I have seen people intimate with the development say on more then one occasion that they NPC's were an early crutch never intended to live.

developer shmeveloper. The NPCs were great and I enjoyed keeping them alive (which I found easier than most people say it is).

 

[Volourn]

"Why do you always extrapolate your situation to the entire world? I have seen people intimate with the development say on more then one occasion that they NPC's were an early crutch never intended to live."

Why do you think what the dvelopers intended to do is supposed to make me bow down and agree with them? if their intention was to make NPCs hopelessly dead at the End Game tm; they did a miserable job of deisgning it. Quiet frabkly, it was easy to do so. even Dogmeat with some quick stepping can be kept alive - not that i cared to.

And, i don't care if people who are having sex with developers say differently. They're irrelavnt to my experience. Bottom line is joinable npcs ENHANCES role-playing.

This point is undisputable. Then again, your idea of role-playing is rping = tb combat so your opinion on the matter of role-playing is irrelevant.

Period.


P.S. Cry some more about what 'developers intended' 'cause it means so little after the game is released. That's any developer, btw.

 

[RGE]

Wouldn't it be better to tell them (and have them listen) not to put mayo on the burger before they make it?

Not if all their burgers have to follow the same recipe and most of their guests enjoy mayo on their burgers. Well, unless the minority of mayo-haters torch the restuarant as a direct consequence of them putting mayo on all their burgers. Then it might have been better to avoid it. In any case, it's a good thing to make one's wishes heard, but the first page on the first thread about Bethesda doing Fallout 3 was enough to make me think that these forums were inhabited by insane people. I can easily see how a reasonable game developer would say that it made his head hurt and then leave it at that. But cooler heads seem to have prevailed.

Going back to the restaurant analogy, the best option might be to offer mayo on the side. But what if certain other guests don't like the lettuce? Or the tomato? Or the cheese? Offer enough ingredients on the side, and it'll almost be like making your own burger. Yup, that'd be much like the NWN Toolset - you get to pick and choose, but your options are limited. And I have yet to see anyone make something as good as Fallout.

 

[Araanor]

The market is overflooded with mayo. We don't want mayo on our burgers!

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Mayo is the jism of the devil, there should be a law against it .

 

[Arcadian Del Sol]

You and your wallet ALWAYS have a choice.

It's kind of like telling someone that they didn't have to die after you've already shot them, isn't it?

Yes. Not buying Fallout3 is exactly like being shot to death.