Interview Codex interview with JE Sawyer

[Gnidrologist]

A couple of points on merging of gun skills.
I never quite understood why Fallout had differerent skills for two types of guns that basicly works the same way, but shoots different kind of ammo - small guns and energy weapons (the ''small'' ones).
What's the difference between pulling a trigger on a pipe rifle or plasma rifle? The game never implies that there is some special techincal care that must be taken for energy weapons or that wielding a plasma rifle is different than wielding FN-FAL besides the fact that different type of stuff comes out of their burrels. Why would handy marksmen get confused and unable to use a rifle that don't shoot 7.62 mm slugs but a laser beam instead?

And quite frankly big guns are also not something of a different league. It's very similar type of actions you perform when using a machine gun to those of a smg usage. It's not a rocket sience to reload M60 or cooling of it's burrels. Those should need strenght check of course, but imo SS perk system would work much more smoothly than necessity to pump valuable skill point in yet another weaponry type whereas you could spend them on outdoorsman or trap finding skills nstead.

As for dividing speech skills I think it's not a bad idea either. Having a different syles of persuading NPCs in Bloodlines was great fun. Only thing that would've been needed for a fallout game is that those different syles would bring a different outcomes so that they wouldn't be only cosmetic choices that don't affect the gameplay.

I do like ideas that Mr. Sawyer was intended to implement if they would've been implemented well.

And great interview by the way. Thanks!

 

[bryce777]

"It would have been better to keep the skills and make lower tech, wimpier types of those weapons for early game use. "

I disagree, because this would take away the wow factor of them. It becomes too much like ooh a laser mark VII. Yawn. Instead when you suddenly see supermutants trying to torch you with plasma guns, it has an impact on you.

A lot of the impact was taken away by the presence of the skill. It became a matter of wondering when you were going to get a plasma rifle rather than HOLY SHIT! PLASMA RIFLES! Arranging the skills via action or into something like pistols, submachineguns, rifles and heavy weapons then making you use science to figure out how to use the energy weapons (or maybe getting an NPC to teach you) would have kept the surprise.

That's true, too, but if you had a generalized shooting skill then this would also be alleviated.

 

[Section8]

The game never implies that there is some special techincal care that must be taken for energy weapons.

Actually:

The use, care and general knowledge of small firearms - pistols, SMGs and rifles.

The operation and maintenance of really big guns - miniguns, rocket launchers, flamethrowers and such.

The core feeding of energy based weapons. How to arm and operate weapons that use laser or plasma technology.

The differences may be abstracted in a strange way (accuracy) but they're somewhat justified by the notion that in a dusty desert wasteland, you have to take good care to keep your weapons clean and operational.

 

[Old Scratch]

I was never too sure about the merging of gun skills. While I could see some merit in Sawyer's reasoning, I like having a diverse set of options in molding my character's abilities. I don't want an easy way to master a bunch of things, prefering to only specialize in a few. That leaves even more room for distinctly different replays, which is one of things I loved about the Fallouts. On that note, I really liked the splitting of speech.

On turn-based vs/+ real-time, that always struck me as a terrible idea. Either game's should be full real-time, or pure turn-based. Don't be half-assed about it; don't put your real-time in my turn-based. Bloodlines to me, was a great example of real-time combat in an RPG, even though it's combat is pretty controversial. But had they intended to make the combat in FO3 purely real-time, people would've gone apeshit.

Regardless, from following it on the BIS boards, I think most of Sawyer's and the rest of the teams ideas for Fallout 3 seemed to be mainly on the right track.

Despite the fact I hated IWD & IWD2, I'm still looking forward to seeing a game JES is involved with that actually sees the light of day. Why must the game industry be so fucked up that Obsidian is relegated to making mainly console games? If just one damn real RPG could break the trend and be financially successful...

Codex interviews are great though, keep 'em coming.

 

[bryce777]

I was never too sure about the merging of gun skills. While I could see some merit in Sawyer's reasoning, I like having a diverse set of options in molding my character's abilities. I don't want an easy way to master a bunch of things, prefering to only specialize in a few. That leaves even more room for distinctly different replays, which is one of things I loved about the Fallouts. On that note, I really liked the splitting of speech.

On turn-based vs/+ real-time, that always struck me as a terrible idea. Either game's should be full real-time, or pure turn-based. Don't be half-assed about it; don't put your real-time in my turn-based. Bloodlines to me, was a great example of real-time combat in an RPG, even though it's combat is pretty controversial. But had they intended to make the combat in FO3 purely real-time, people would've gone apeshit.

Regardless, from following it on the BIS boards, I think most of Sawyer's and the rest of the teams ideas for Fallout 3 seemed to be mainly on the right track.

Despite the fact I hated IWD & IWD2, I'm still looking forward to seeing a game JES is involved with that actually sees the light of day. Why must the game industry be so fucked up that Obsidian is relegated to making mainly console games? If just one damn real RPG could break the trend and be financially successful...

Codex interviews are great though, keep 'em coming.

I agree with the specialization thing. However, for simple skills like shooting, I think it should just be learn by usage. That way you can switch later on without being penalized (in fallout tactics your characters became totally worthless if they did not have energy weapon skills high). Part of it was just that fallout tactics was relaly fucking shitty and imbalanced, though. Something as simple as weapon usage shoudl not be worried over too much, though and there is a lot of similarities between weapons. It's like how in DnD you have to specialize in one stupid weapona nd then 85% of the weapons you find are fucking longswords.


When a game is realtime with pause, I think that that should clue you in that you are trying to do things that are unnatural to do in realtime; either control one character in realtime, or else a party in turnbased, not some big mess.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

What's the difference between pulling a trigger on a pipe rifle or plasma rifle?

The kick. That and energy weapons are big, heavy five foot long suckers.

 

[Drakron]

You mean recoil, energy weapons would have no recoil.

Also there is the path, as I stated in the case of a "pipe rifle" the wind and gravity would affect the trajectory as in a plasma rifle it would not (energy dispersion would affect its range and weather would affect that) and a plasma rifle would not have the "instant" effect of a laser rifle meaning they would have to "lead" the taget just like with "pipe rifle" except there would be naturaly be speed diferences meaning more/less "lead".

 

[Old Scratch]

I agree with the specialization thing. However, for simple skills like shooting, I think it should just be learn by usage. That way you can switch later on without being penalized (in fallout tactics your characters became totally worthless if they did not have energy weapon skills high). Part of it was just that fallout tactics was relaly fucking shitty and imbalanced, though. Something as simple as weapon usage shoudl not be worried over too much, though and there is a lot of similarities between weapons. It's like how in DnD you have to specialize in one stupid weapona nd then 85% of the weapons you find are fucking longswords.

I understand what you mean, but once a developer starts down a path of streamlining things that don't really need to be streamlined, it can end up hurting the options for a unique experience with the game and the game's overall life.

Too often you read in interviews where a developer will make some silly statement like, "We didn't want to limit the player's options and feel like they were missing out on something if they chose option X." While that sounds kind of good in theory, in practice, an over-simplified game where everone's character will basically be the same and be able to experience everything in the game on their first run through it is usually the end result. KotOR and even DE: Invisible War, are good examples of spoiling the player taken to extremes and greatly damaging the game for it.

To put it simply: the player really shouldn't expect to "have their cake and eat it too," in an RPG.

You're right that balancing probably becomes far more tricky in a situation where there are a lot of options in seemingly mundane things like weapon choice though, but the game ends up better for it if done right as far as I'm concerned.

When a game is realtime with pause, I think that that should clue you in that you are trying to do things that are unnatural to do in realtime; either control one character in realtime, or else a party in turnbased, not some big mess.

Exactly.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You mean recoil, energy weapons would have no recoil.

Which is the same fucking thing as a kick when talking about guns.

Also there is the path

You mean kinematic projectile motion. LEWL!

 

[Higher Game]

I would expect a heavy, 5 foot long gun to have very little recoil.

 

[Volourn]

One of VD's better interviews, and much less attempt at trying to lead the interviewee.

I disagree with JE's take on the current RPG market; but no biggy.

 

[RGE]

But unless you have monster type X being immune to everything but guns, or everything but fists, or anything but a non-projectile weapon, then any combat skill can get you through any situation. So long as the game lets me pump up my melee weapons skill regularly, and so long as the game provides me with a steady succession of lead pipe, lead pipe +1, lead pipe +2 and so on, I don't need anything but that one skill.

If guns are better but ammo is limited, then you may not be able to beat every opponent with melee (which was mentioned earlier), and at the same time you might not be able to spend ammo on all enemies, so you may want both skills depending on how often you want to be able to kill someone. The difference between melee and unarmed could be that in some settlements a melee weapon is seen as an attempt to kill, while unarmed combat might be seen as an eligible method of solving issues. This could result in you losing respect if you resort to weapons against unarmed opponents, or perhaps the whole village jumps you. So I'd say that firearms, melee and unarmed could be balanced enough for my taste. The lack of ammo in itself is another issue, and while I don't have a problem with it, I could see how it'd be difficult to explain when looking at the previous games.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Some people like oranges and some people don't.

Notice how that statement doesn't actually mean anything?

It means that I don't think real-time combat is inherently great or terrible and I don't think turn-based combat is inherently great or terrible. It means something different than saying, "I think real-time combat is terrible and I love turn-based combat."

Does anyone actually think otherwise though? I mean, I know I'm a huge proponent of turn-based combat but it doesn't mean I don't kick arse at Starcraft or play far too much Battlefield: 1942.

I seriously don't think you should get a better weapon just for tagging this skill.

Just a note, people talking about Energy Weapons seem to have forgotten the basic Laser Pistol. It's expensive, uses expensive ammo and does less minimum damage than the 14mm Pistol. Though it causes Laser Damage which your opponents usually have less protection against. Again, advantages and disadvantages. There are no clear winners. While the M72 Gauss Rifle may not cause as much damage as the Plasma Rifle, it's still pretty kick arse and can well and truly handle its own in the hands of a competent Small Guns player. Players who tag Energy Weapons have also had to suffer through the first part of the game, trying to survive until they can reach the stage that they can kick arse. I agree with kingcomrade, it's a reward for that play style. The people who like to kick arse at the start vs those who are willing to take a little pain to receive greater rewards later.

The weapons in Fallout don't exist in a vacuum, energy weapons are, on an absolute scale, better than projectile weapons. It doesn't make any sense to have a "zapper gun" or a "blunderbuss" (which, by the way, is basically a shotgun and it isn't a big gun) when the "basic" weapon in the setting is a 10mm pistol. The world shouldn't tailor itself to you.

Now, there already are "zapper guns" though but you can't get a hold of them early in the game. So while I agree that no, you shouldn't get one too early as it is nice when you get it late in the game, I don't think it should mean someone can't get one, if they're willing to try hard enough. It should take some kind of reasonable effort though.

It wasn't squirrely it was quite fine. If you invested in energy weapons you were able to get very powerful guns about two thirds of the way through the game, and you typically had enough small arms skill to get by with more mundane weapons. Quite frankly, giving players skill-based weapons based on their skill choices rather than any sort of plot (you start with a 10mm pistol no matter what you do in Fallout, and the same in Fallout 2 with the spear) is "dumbing down."

I agree with this.

The thing I'm writing, it basically states that all players have some sort of competency. You can use whatever weapons you like, nothing is grayed out because you don't have enough skill, kinda the same way you can use weapons that you don't have the minimum strength for, and then you get skill bonuses. I really need to finish that thingy and post it, I think you guys will find it interesting.

Nope, not a fan of "you can use everything a bit but you're just not good at it" systems. While it's perhaps more "realistic" it destroys the desire aspect of a game. The whole point behind restricing people and denying them the opportunity to use certain weapons or items at all is because it adds desire. It creates that "damn, I want to use that killer looking weapon!" and gamers will start again or modify their character build during game so that they can use them. Anything else is the GTA: San Andreas system, which works quite well for a combat-driven game but not so good for a role-playing game.

A lot of the impact was taken away by the presence of the skill. It became a matter of wondering when you were going to get a plasma rifle rather than HOLY SHIT! PLASMA RIFLES! Arranging the skills via action or into something like pistols, submachineguns, rifles and heavy weapons then making you use science to figure out how to use the energy weapons (or maybe getting an NPC to teach you) would have kept the surprise.

In my first game of Fallout (which surprisingly, I can remember) I tagged Small Guns, Speech and... something else. Yet during my game, I kept putting points into Energy Weapons because I seemed to think "Hrmm.. Might get some good stuff out of that" instead of focussing on my tag skills. Eventually, I got the opportunity to tag a 4th sklil via the perk. I tagged Energy Weapons and BAM it went right up to 200% (the max in FO1). I then went back to the Gun Runners and, unable to actually afford a Plasma Rifle, proceeded to blow the fuck out of that leader guy, managed to kill him while surviving the attacks form the rest of the Gun Runners, stole his Plasma Rifle and then proceeded to wipe them out in all of 2 turns. It was the best fight I had in the game (which could be why I remember it). My other skills were sorely under-powered but I'd managed to take them out and get "the prize" just before I was completely wasted. After a bit of "Go to inventory, use all the Stimpaks you need" healing (which is, quite frankly, a bug), there was nothing that could stop me.

I don't think there needs to be "surprise". It's that knowing that there's "something" out there which I can use this skill with, that it's enough to go for it and then get the reward even though you've never seen a Plasma Rifle. When you finally do, it's that "Neat, so that's what I can use that for" and all of a sudden, you're willing to take on some crazy muthafuckers when you're far too unskilled, just to get your hands on it.

To be honest, the skills in Fallout were fine and didn't really need tweaking. Oh sure, we could all argue that throwing was useless and gambling wasn't really worthwhile and so on but I think it's better to run with them and improve on them (like making uses for all your gaming wins) then it is to merge them all and split others up (Small Guns, Big Guns and Energy Weapons into Firearms, Melee and Throwing into Melee while keeping Unarmed, Merging First Aid and Doctor into Medic while splitting Speech into Deception and Persuasion). While a game with only a core group of 7 merged skills might be nice, I didn't see any point in doing that to Fallout. EG:

Firearms (Small Guns, Big Guns, Energy Weapons)
Melee (Melee Weapons, Throwing, Unarmed)
Medic (Doctor, First Aid)
Speech (Speech)
Finance (Barter, Gambling)
Thief (Lockpick, Sneak, Steal, Traps)
Mechanic (Repair, Science)

Remove: Outdoorsman (Who really cares about it anyway?)

... cause then you only need to tag one skill, it really, really fucks the current skills system up and to be honest, it becomes just a little bit boring too (Not that JE was proposing these merges but I wanted to make the example).

For reference, here is the JE list as I remember it:

14 skills:

• 3 combat
  • Firearms (Small Guns, Big Guns, Energy Weapons)
  • Melee (Melee Weapons + Throwing)
  • Unarmed (Also included were special Combo Move perks)
• 3 diplomacy
  • Deception (Speech / 2)
  • Persuasion (Speech / 2)
  • Barter
• 4 science
  • Science
  • Repair
  • Medic (First Aid + Doctor)
  • Outdoorsman
• 4 stealth.
  • Steal
  • Sneak
  • Lockpick
  • Traps

JE can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Vault Dweller]

One of VD's better interviews, and much less attempt at trying to lead the interviewee.

What's wrong with leading? Anyway, Volly, your approval means the world to me, so thanksalot!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Anything else is the GTA: San Andreas system, which works quite well for a combat-driven game but not so good for a role-playing game.

True; the ability to use weapons effectively at beginning but increase their handling, speed and reload values the more they are used - along with having to make choices regarding what weapon variant we want to carry as opposed to carrying everything - works very well.

 

[Volourn]

"What's wrong with leading?"

Because it sets the interviewee to give the answer you are looking for, or to look 'stupid' because they don't. Should just ask the questions, and let them answer as they see fit. Fishing for specific answers is poor interviewing, imo. Afterall, in an interview, there should be *no* 'wrong' answers.


"Anyway, Volly, your approval means the world to me, so thanksalot!"

Ahh.. Sarcasm. :D

 

[Vault Dweller]

"What's wrong with leading?"

Because it sets the interviewee to give the answer you are looking for, or to look 'stupid' because they don't.

You missed the best option - defending one's own damn point of view.

 

[kingcomrade]

Nope, not a fan of "you can use everything a bit but you're just not good at it" systems. While it's perhaps more "realistic" it destroys the desire aspect of a game. The whole point behind restricing people and denying them the opportunity to use certain weapons or items at all is because it adds desire. It creates that "damn, I want to use that killer looking weapon!" and gamers will start again or modify their character build during game so that they can use them.

It's always seemed really contrived to me. It's somewhat defensible in a fantasy game with magical items, but anyone can shoot someone at point blank with a pistol at least half the time.

 

[Drakron]

But that is were Fallout range really shines, at point black there would be little chance to miss but it must exist (since there is always the random element).

 

[bryce777]

I agree with the specialization thing. However, for simple skills like shooting, I think it should just be learn by usage. That way you can switch later on without being penalized (in fallout tactics your characters became totally worthless if they did not have energy weapon skills high). Part of it was just that fallout tactics was relaly fucking shitty and imbalanced, though. Something as simple as weapon usage shoudl not be worried over too much, though and there is a lot of similarities between weapons. It's like how in DnD you have to specialize in one stupid weapona nd then 85% of the weapons you find are fucking longswords.

I understand what you mean, but once a developer starts down a path of streamlining things that don't really need to be streamlined, it can end up hurting the options for a unique experience with the game and the game's overall life.

Too often you read in interviews where a developer will make some silly statement like, "We didn't want to limit the player's options and feel like they were missing out on something if they chose option X." While that sounds kind of good in theory, in practice, an over-simplified game where everone's character will basically be the same and be able to experience everything in the game on their first run through it is usually the end result. KotOR and even DE: Invisible War, are good examples of spoiling the player taken to extremes and greatly damaging the game for it.

To put it simply: the player really shouldn't expect to "have their cake and eat it too," in an RPG.

You're right that balancing probably becomes far more tricky in a situation where there are a lot of options in seemingly mundane things like weapon choice though, but the game ends up better for it if done right as far as I'm concerned.

When a game is realtime with pause, I think that that should clue you in that you are trying to do things that are unnatural to do in realtime; either control one character in realtime, or else a party in turnbased, not some big mess.

Exactly.

I definitely agree in principle. In this case I don't like that the weapons skills detract so much from the noncombat skills, though.

 

[bryce777]

"Does anyone actually think otherwise though? I mean, I know I'm a huge proponent of turn-based combat but it doesn't mean I don't kick arse at Starcraft or play far too much Battlefield: 1942. "

Realtime and controlling a party sucks ass, and I think a lot of people feel this way besides me.

 

[kingcomrade]

It's not so bad with RTS games because your units basically can Move or Attack (and in games like TA the line is really fuzzy, since the unit AI does almost all of the shooting). When you start adding in special features like Siege Mode or Fireball or whatever, that's when RTS games start to become turdfests, and it's the reason why Warcraft 3 introduced an autocast feature.

This is probably why Dungeon Siege is such a boring game, it's basically an RTS trying to be an RPG (even WITH pause)

 

[Volourn]

"You missed the best option - defending one's own damn point of view."

I didn't know interviews were supposed to be mini wars where the interviewer and interviewee make attacks then counter attacks. That's lame. Face the facts.

Interviews are supposed to be asking questions, and recieving answers. Not an argument, or a debate.

Stop calling them interviews then, and instead refer to them as a mini debate between you, and the interviewee.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Vault Dweller can interview me anytime - I love being driven

 

[aweigh]

Who wants a mustache ride!