Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Preview There is no dialogue in Oblivion according to 1UP

Mantiis

Cipher
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
1,786
Ah again while trying to make fun galsiah is using an analogy which is flawed. We are not playing Zork nor are we playing PnP DnD we are talking about Morrowind/Oblivion.

It seems that a large number of regular posters here are blinded by their hatred of morrowind and how it does not fit their version of what an rpg should and should not be.

How does going where ever you want, creating your own character, talking to who ever you want inhibit roleplaying? Fallout had a nice story and nice conversation interactions with NPCs (empathy perk was fun) but its combat was flawed, the skills/stats system it used was also flawed. Did that make it not a rpg?
 

galsiah

Erudite
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,613
Location
Montreal
Mantiis said:
Ah again while trying to make fun galsiah is using an analogy which is flawed. We are not playing Zork nor are we playing PnP DnD we are talking about Morrowind/Oblivion.
You were talking about roleplaying and imagination - so was I.
It seems that a large number of regular posters here are blinded by their hatred of morrowind and how it does not fit their version of what an rpg should and should not be.
Neither Sabregirl nor I are Morrowind haters. I think Morrowind is a good game in many ways, but is it a good RPG? No. It allows roleplaying in the sense that an FPS does - you have to use your imagination / put artificial constraints on your actions to retain an ounce of character.
Sabregirl makes race mods to add diversity to roleplaying and gameplay possibilities. I made a character progression system to add diversity to roleplaying and gameplay possibilities. There is no sense in calling Morrowind a great RPG when it so clearly isn't. It can be made into a good RPG with enough mods, but it isn't on its own.

How does going where ever you want, creating your own character, talking to who ever you want inhibit roleplaying?
The lack of talking and the lack of character don't really help too much.

...but its combat was flawed, the skills/stats system it used was also flawed.
Are we still on Morrowind here?


The Wiki style did work for Ultima VII.... just sayin'
The wiki style probably isn't Morrowind's / Oblivion's biggest fault. The biggest fault of Morrowind is the lack of dialogue choice, and the lack of consequence to most existing choice. Hopefully Oblivion will be better on this - we'll see.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
FrancoTAU said:
The Wiki style did work for Ultima VII.... just sayin'

Same style, which is why I tried to make a distinction between the style and the implementation (probably cocked it up though). Although Ultima VII had branching off dialogue trees and was written in such a way as to convey the impression that you had just said something of interest. I'll stick to my point on the fact that it does limit an RPG a great deal though as it totally prevents character development via dialogue.
 

FrancoTAU

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,507
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Mefi said:
FrancoTAU said:
The Wiki style did work for Ultima VII.... just sayin'

Same style, which is why I tried to make a distinction between the style and the implementation (probably cocked it up though). Although Ultima VII had branching off dialogue trees and was written in such a way as to convey the impression that you had just said something of interest. I'll stick to my point on the fact that it does limit an RPG a great deal though as it totally prevents character development via dialogue.

Yeah, i agree. It's the least good dialogue style, but it can be pulled off. I'd bet all my worldly possessions that there won't be Ultima VII dialogue depth in Oblviion. It just makes me scratch my head when you're a Dev not really known for it's quality dialogue and yet you choose to go with this style.

I'm just trying to all fair and balanced like Foxnews.
 

Stark

Liturgist
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
770
Mantiis said:
Ah again while trying to make fun galsiah is using an analogy which is flawed. We are not playing Zork nor are we playing PnP DnD we are talking about Morrowind/Oblivion.

I actually thought galsiah made very valid points, which I am sure is getting the messages across to you. Why not attempt to counter his points instead of going off tangent and claiming people here hate MW (not true btw) and fallout is flawed (i thought we're discussing the flaw of MW's dialog here)?

Mantiis said:
How does going where ever you want, creating your own character, talking to who ever you want inhibit roleplaying?

it does not, but it seems you're totally missing the point here. We're discussing MW's wiki dialog and its flaws. it may be a good idea to reread Mefi's post.
 

Lumpy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,525
Mantiis, chosing what your character says is nice, but it would be a whole lot nicer if the game understood the difference between "Greetings, lady. Any news today?" and "Hey, bitch! Tell me what the news are or I'll kill you". If I only think those answers in my head, it's really unrewarding, since it has absolutely no effect on the NPCs' answers. Or should I make those up in my mind too?
We should at least be able to choose a tone, which would affect answers.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,390
Mantiis said:
It seems that a large number of regular posters here are blinded by their hatred of morrowind and how it does not fit their version of what an rpg should and should not be.
Is that why I'm having trouble seeing things lately...

Mantiis said:
How does going where ever you want, creating your own character, talking to who ever you want inhibit roleplaying?
It doesn't but then again, it doesn't necessarily enhance role-playing either. "Going everywhere and doing everything" does not equate to role playing in and of itself. If it did, you're saying Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is about the most successful role-playing game released in the past few years. In fact, becoming limited in your exploration because of certain decisions you make in-game can enhance aspects of role-playing. For example, the Secret Thieves Guild aren't about to let just any old person join and come into their lair.

Mantiis said:
Fallout had a nice story and nice conversation interactions with NPCs (empathy perk was fun) but its combat was flawed, the skills/stats system it used was also flawed.
In what ways do you feel Fallout's combat and skills/stas system were flawed? Can you elaborate on those? Also, how did the combat impede role-playing for you?
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
I don't believe the analogies put forth accurately describe what I was trying to say. In morrowind you are the neveraine, YOU. In super mario you are playing mario, in GTA you are playing some "gangster" that has an identity.

In morrowing you create who you are (even down to the custom classes) and decide where to go and who to see. Side scollers do not give this nor do action games. The extension to this as I saw it at the time was you say what you want be it in your head or out loud (with or without your girlfriend looking strangely at you) as you are playing the game.

Clearly I am alone in thinking this way.

Well, what a good many of us here seem to be about, but speaking for myself mainly, is that I want the game to react to my choices, poor facsimile of actual social role-play though it may be.

The point of the previous analogies is that sombody playing Mario 3 *can* use their imagination as much as somebody playing Morrowind can, and freedom aside, those choices won't be acknowledged either way.

How is a player thinking "I'm a khajiit sorceror that has transformed himself into a tubby little italian plumber, but the spell apparently warped my sense of direction so i can only move sideways," any different to "I am a Time Paladin, sent to a prison boat by Akatosh to bring truth, justice and timepieces to Vvardenfell?"

The only difference I can think of is that Morrowind does have a broad range of cosmetic choices to support my roleplay, and yet nothing to validate it. So to address:

How does going where ever you want, creating your own character, talking to who ever you want inhibit roleplaying?

It doesn't inhibit it. But it doesn't further it either. However, there are aspects of the game that do inhibit RPing.

The main quest isn't exactly compelling, and more or less requires the player to revoke their freedom to do whatever they want in order to be subservient to an imperial skooma fiend.

The world is finite. If unrestricted imagination is what you tout as the penultimate RP mechanic, then why even play the game? There are countless games out there that procedurally generate worlds so large as to be "limitless" from the player's perspective. In fact, with roguelikes, you even get to imagine what everything looks like, because it's not served up for you on a platter. ;)

--
Now as far as "hatred of Morrowind" and whether or not it's an RPG, my take on it is this - It's not much of a game. Morrowind is kind of like a fantasy counterpart to some hybrid of Google Earth, Wikipedia and Heromaker, with added support for third party content.

It's great fun to explore and discover things, and the world detail for the most part is fantastic. So is the amount of lore and knowledge within the game. I can also take advantage of a wide range of variety to customise my character visually.

But aside from that, what else is there? NPCs are little more than cold, atonal points of lore reference, combat is bland, repetitive and offers no actual challenge to the player. The fixed storyline would be better served in a medium more supportive, such as literature. The side quests are generally uninspired and require nothing more than a predictable combination of the previously mentioned bland aspects of the game.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
but its combat was flawed, the skills/stats system it used was also flawed.

This must mean Oblivion and Morrowind's combat and character system are one the level of Herve Caen in the great big scale of Fuck Uppery, then.
 

Irwanday01

Novice
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
35
Section8 said:
--
Now as far as "hatred of Morrowind" and whether or not it's an RPG, my take on it is this - It's not much of a game. Morrowind is kind of like a fantasy counterpart to some hybrid of Google Earth, Wikipedia and Heromaker, with added support for third party content.

It's great fun to explore and discover things, and the world detail for the most part is fantastic. So is the amount of lore and knowledge within the game. I can also take advantage of a wide range of variety to customise my character visually.

But aside from that, what else is there? NPCs are little more than cold, atonal points of lore reference, combat is bland, repetitive and offers no actual challenge to the player. The fixed storyline would be better served in a medium more supportive, such as literature. The side quests are generally uninspired and require nothing more than a predictable combination of the previously mentioned bland aspects of the game.

That was the absolute best description of morrowind I've ever heard.

It is true the gaming world should be more interactive.
 

Mantiis

Cipher
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
1,786
This must mean Oblivion and Morrowind's combat and character system are one the level of Herve Caen in the great big scale of Fuck Uppery, then.

I don't understand what you are saying, what's a Herve Caen?

Well, what a good many of us here seem to be about, but speaking for myself mainly, is that I want the game to react to my choices, poor facsimile of actual social role-play though it may be.

From memory morrowind did; ill admit that the main quest was relatively a straight line but the numerous side quests could be completed in a number of fashions. Steal something for the thieves guild could piss off certain people within the game. The whole issue with the fighter's guild log (charter?) that the thieves guild wanted; completing that quest would prevent you from being in the fighters guild. That seems like a choice just not one in dialogue.

The point of the previous analogies is that sombody playing Mario 3 *can* use their imagination as much as somebody playing Morrowind can, and freedom aside, those choices won't be acknowledged either way.

Again you are missing my point: some random person created Mario not you, you can pretend you are mario and that's fine if it is your thing but it was not created by you so you cannot relate to that character as you could if you created it in your image. If you cannot understand this concept then my earlier statement of talking in your mind when in dialogue with someone would not be understood.

It's great fun to explore and discover things, and the world detail for the most part is fantastic. So is the amount of lore and knowledge within the game. I can also take advantage of a wide range of variety to customise my character visually.

But aside from that, what else is there? NPCs are little more than cold, atonal points of lore reference, combat is bland, repetitive and offers no actual challenge to the player. The fixed storyline would be better served in a medium more supportive, such as literature. The side quests are generally uninspired and require nothing more than a predictable combination of the previously mentioned bland aspects of the game.

So by definition a game which has a good, evil, neutral and joke response in a dialogue sequences is a rpg and yet a game which allows you to create a character and interact with the world as you see fit, finish the majority of side quests as you see fit is not. Maybe this issue here is what defines an rpg?

In what ways do you feel Fallout's combat and skills/stas system were flawed? Can you elaborate on those? Also, how did the combat impede role-playing for you?

Skills had tiers of usefulness; you had certain skills that allowed the game to be much easier for you than others. Try a game by tagging Doctor, repair and science and let us know how you go.

Traits - who here has never taken gifted?

Combat - why does it take 5AP to pull a trigger?

Lets be clear here I love Fallout 1 and 2 but it is not the God among games of rpgs. Rose colored glasses and all that.

Mantiis, chosing what your character says is nice, but it would be a whole lot nicer if the game understood the difference between "Greetings, lady. Any news today?" and "Hey, bitch! Tell me what the news are or I'll kill you". If I only think those answers in my head, it's really unrewarding, since it has absolutely no effect on the NPCs' answers.

This is where the persuasion skill comes into play; I believe you can use pursuade to intimidate or to praise. Using this skill will increase their dispostion to you or decrease it depending on whether you are successful or not. It just doesn't say 'hey bitch' when you click it. Feel free to say it out loud when you click it however.

I believe you can also bribe them.

I actually thought galsiah made very valid points, which I am sure is getting the messages across to you. Why not attempt to counter his points instead of going off tangent and claiming people here hate MW (not true btw) and fallout is flawed (i thought we're discussing the flaw of MW's dialog here)?

He made valid points I guess only if you disregard the fact he was addressing my post. I got the impression that he missed my point; if he missed my point then his response to my post was irrelevent as he was trying to address it. If I misunderstood this, apologies.

In what ways do you feel Fallout's combat and skills/stas system were flawed? Can you elaborate on those? Also, how did the combat impede role-playing for you?

I addressed part of this above; combat-wise I didnt think that the AP system reflected what someone could and couldnt do. As I said above 5AP to shoot a gun after you have aimed it is just silly. Having said that it is a hell of a alot better than arcarnum.

You were talking about roleplaying and imagination - so was I.

I was talking about roleplaying your responses within Morrowind and you posted a script of an imaginary PnP DnD session in which I was placed as an idiot DM. I can see how the two are related. A correct analogy however would be Morrowind playing the DM role and I playing the confused player role.

Wow that was a lot of typing. I leave off with this:

If Morrowind/Oblivion is not an RPG more of a google world search thingy why oh why is information/news being constantly posted about it on a rpg website? Could it possibly be a rpg that just doesn't have what you like as a dialogue interface?
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
I don't understand what you are saying, what's a Herve Caen?

Herve Caen was the CEO (?) of Titus and later Interplay when it was acquired. Regardless of what he himself is directly responsible for, he was the man at the helm when Interplay took it's big tumble.

So in short, he's saying that if Fallout's combat is "flawed," then Morrowinds is the very epitome of "utterly flawed in every way." Or something such.

From memory morrowind did; ill admit that the main quest was relatively a straight line but the numerous side quests could be completed in a number of fashions. Steal something for the thieves guild could piss off certain people within the game. The whole issue with the fighter's guild log (charter?) that the thieves guild wanted; completing that quest would prevent you from being in the fighters guild. That seems like a choice just not one in dialogue.

Okay, to be fair, I do tend to discount the few choices that were interesting or at least halfway so, because they're a clear minority, but you're right. Morrowind does have moments where choices have consequences.

However, the majority of the game had little in the way of actual choice. For instance, being a Morag Tong assassin was more about having the ability to kill someone than to be clandestine about it, so basically the requirement was something every character was required to have for the rest of the game anyway.

There's more evidence of choices that should have mattered, but didn't. Like being a member of both House Telvanni and the Mages Guild. Or going near anyone while infected with Corprus.

And, some of us also take issue with the very attitude of the developers that all players should be able to accomplish everything. But, I will concede that Morrowind wasn't entirely devoid of consequence. Sadly, all portents point to Oblivion having even less in the way of meaningful consequence.

Again you are missing my point: some random person created Mario not you, you can pretend you are mario and that's fine if it is your thing but it was not created by you so

It's not as though Mario has any kind of deep personality or backstory that I can't override with my own imagination. That was my original point. But...

you cannot relate to that character as you could if you created it in your image. If you cannot understand this concept then my earlier statement of talking in your mind when in dialogue with someone would not be understood.

I certainly agree with this, but it's the fact that I can't project that image that troubles me. Thus, it makes the relation to my character no more relevant than if I play Mario with my own image of what his personality is like.

So by definition a game which has a good, evil, neutral and joke response in a dialogue sequences is a rpg and yet a game which allows you to create a character and interact with the world as you see fit, finish the majority of side quests as you see fit is not. Maybe this issue here is what defines an rpg?

That's about the gist of it. If Morrowind were a P&P session, it would be all die rolls and no speaking, other than the DM quoting passages from the rulebooks. For me, the most important part of role-playing is the act of evoking the character I've imagined.

Like the thespian, I seek an audience for my dramatics. Now ideally, that's fellow human beings who are also playing their own role. But, failing that, a responsive computer driven emulation of that is almost as good. If it doesn't respond in any meaningful way, then I'm better off just daydreaming without a computer in front of me. Or committing my imagination to sharable media.

For instance, a bit of Morrowind roleplay. But did I need the game for that, or did I just use online reference? ;)

Now, as far as "good, evil, neutral and joke response", that's a fairly absolutist example. It's the sort of thing you see in Bioware games, and I'm not a fan of them either.

Dialogue trees aren't perfect, certainly, because they are by their very nature, putting words in my mouth. But, they're elegant in their function. Obviously, I can't always find the exact response I'm after, but if they're well written, I can usually find something that fits pretty close to the tone and vernacular I'd use.

Then, you have something that has a semblence of actual conversation, rather than a completely abstracted system of keywords and functions. And that, I believe is worth the tradeoff of "putting words in my mouth."

It also permits variable responses and consequences from NPCs in reply. Like Lumpy's example:

"Greetings, lady. Any news today?" and "Hey, bitch! Tell me what the news are or I'll kill you".

With dialogue trees, it's a simple matter of selecting between those two choices for a drastically different tone.

If you try and abstract that into Morrowind terms, then the difference between one and the other is manually and willfully manipulating the persuasion system contrary to the game systems, and then hoping the topic actually has varied responses based on standing. That's utterly contrived, not a reasonable facsimile of a social interaction. Resorting to my own imagination to "fill in the blanks" is a direct result of the game failing to deliver, and I honestly don't think it's in any way different than making believe a crash to desktop hadn't just occured. You're compensating for the inadequacy of the developer to fulfil your desires.

Skills had tiers of usefulness; you had certain skills that allowed the game to be much easier for you than others. Try a game by tagging Doctor, repair and science and let us know how you go.

True enough, but among let's say Tier 1 (the most useful skills) there's a great deal of variety. Firearms and Melee are quite differentiated, despite falling under the blanket of combat skills. Sneak offers an altogether different game dynamic, and so does Speech.

Would you agree that provided the player picks at least one primarily useful skill, it possible to create dramatically different but equally viable character builds? Also, why should all types of character be equal in difficulty? It's the fact that character choice can greatly alter the game experience you will have with Fallout that makes it an absolute gem.

Traits - who here has never taken gifted?

Another one I agree with. The traits were altogether unbalanced, but at least most of them have the intention of altering your character through advantages and drawbacks as a point of differentiation.

Combat - why does it take 5AP to pull a trigger?

That's scraping the barrel though. It's like saying "why can a knight only move three steps forward and one to the side?" It's a game rule, and realistic or not it works well enough.

Lets be clear here I love Fallout 1 and 2 but it is not the God among games of rpgs. Rose colored glasses and all that.

And here's where we really disagree. For me, Fallout is the real deal. I can comfortably acknowledge that despite some failings it's a superb game, and an even better RPG. Fallout 2 I have a slightly lesser opinion of, but it's still excellent in it's own right.

If Morrowind/Oblivion is not an RPG more of a google world search thingy why oh why is information/news being constantly posted about it on a rpg website? Could it possibly be a rpg that just doesn't have what you like as a dialogue interface?

The Codex also covers games like Fable. Basically anything with the <s>audacity</s> <s>nerve</s> willingness to call itself a RPG with a significant single player component, released on the PC, is fair game for the Codex. ;)

[edit] Also, there's a lot of disdain for what we perceive as "failed potential" in the Elder Scrolls games. I know many people here would want nothing more than a technological update to Daggerfall's ambitious design principles.

Anyway, if you're willing to stick around, you'll find that there's a lot of history in these forums, with discussion of everything and anything RPG related. There's arguments about the "true" definitions, there's countless posts about innovation and ideas within the genre. You name it, and it's here somewhere hidden among the vitriol and goatse.cx.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
Or committing my imagination to sharable media.
You should :)

Traits - who here has never taken gifted?
Me. If I ever take traits, I take one-handed and/or fast shot. I didn't even take it the first time I played.

Lets be clear here I love Fallout 1 and 2 but it is not the God among games of rpgs. Rose colored glasses and all that.
You're right, Fallout 2 is nowhere are godlike as Fallout.

Anyway, if you're willing to stick around, you'll find that there's a lot of history in these forums, with discussion of everything and anything RPG related.
And just as many jokes that have been going on for far too long.
 

Mantiis

Cipher
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
1,786
Quote:
Traits - who here has never taken gifted?

Me. If I ever take traits, I take one-handed and/or fast shot. I didn't even take it the first time I played.

I call shenanigans on that; can we get a referee here to make sure he has never ever chosen the best trait in the fallout games?
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
I misread your thingy, thought it said, "who here never takes gifted?" Subtle difference.
I took it once, and marveled at what an ubermensch I became. Imbalances the game, yes. I didn't take it in Fallout 2, ever.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,390
Mantiis said:
Skills had tiers of usefulness; you had certain skills that allowed the game to be much easier for you than others. Try a game by tagging Doctor, repair and science and let us know how you go.
Fallout 2 has some pros for tagging doctor. But in Fallout 1 repair and science are usually in my tag list anyway and lets face it, you don't really need to tag anything that comes with books so most players are usually going to have a pretty good small guns skill regardless of what they tag. Players who like the challenge can tag those skills and play a game perfectly fine. As Section8 implied, why should every character have the exact same, easy going, game experience? Some people actually like a challenge.

Mantiis said:
Traits - who here has never taken gifted?
Umm... I never take Gifted. Seriously, I value my perks and an extra 1 in all the starting stats doesn't mean much to me vs getting some perks early such as tagging an extra skill and awareness. I have to admit I always take that "help with the anti-rad one" though because it means you only have to take one Rad-X to survive The Glow and lets face it, in Fallout you're either 100% rad resistant or it's not worth worrying about. Truth be told that choice is more out of me not seeing much value in the traits most times, considering I became an uber mensch anyway, I never saw it as adding any serious extra value (there's also the skill hit to keep in mind).

I think the traits just added an extra thing to the game though and Gifted (munchkins) vs Skilled (IN 1 characters who need the boost to their skills) or Fast Shot all had some serious pros and cons which I don't think anyone could say one is definately better than the other. Fast Shot for example precluded the use of aimed shots which seriously hampered you if you were planning to build an energy weapons character, yet gave you an edge when it came to big or small guns. They all allowed you to build certain characters and it ultimately depended on the type of character you were after.

That's not to say some things could've done with some tweaking but I don't think it's so carte blanche¹ as you might think. Each player seems to have their own personal preferences (as per my chem trait preference). But saying "everyone always takes Gifted" is ignoring Small Frame, Fast Shot, Finesse, One Hander, Heavy Handed, Jinxed or even Good Natured depending on how you intend to play your character.

Of course, if you're the typical Morrowind player who thinks winning is all about maxing every skill out, then I can understand why you'd think everyone takes Gifted...

¹That's totally the wrong word but I've been wanting to get that one into a post for a while now.

Mantiis said:
Combat - why does it take 5AP to pull a trigger?
Because the time includes aiming as well. As Section8 said, it's also a game balance issue. There are perks and traits you can tag, as well as simply building a character with a high agility, tagging energy weapons and picking the turbo plasma rifle as your weapon of choice and you're taking two aimed shots to the eyes causing critical hits and death to enemies as tough asSuper Mutants every turn. Considering most encounters are with 5 enemies or less, that becomes a huge advantage. If it took any less, any twit could pick anything and it wouldn't matter. You'd win without any thought required and one of the great things about Fallout is really thinking through your character choice and again, how those decisions affect the game.

After all, how many doctors do you know who'd have an easy time surviving in a post-apocalyptic environment? Why should it be as easy for them as it is for someone who goes all out and tags the skills, picks the traits and perks and builds the stats they need in order to maximise their combat? It's all about choice and consequence and that, more than anything else, is what Fallout has in spades.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
I think you mixed your Gifted and Skilled traits a bit. Skilled made you lose your perks in exchange for skill points, Gifted got you attribute points at the cost of skill points when you leveled up.

Good Natured is the one I forgot to mention. I usually take Good Natured and Fast Shot, not One Hander.
 

Azael

Magister
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Messages
4,405
Location
Multikult Central South
Wasteland 2
Mantiis said:
I call shenanigans on that; can we get a referee here to make sure he has never ever chosen the best trait in the fallout games?

Well, from a combat perspectice Fast Shot and One Handed could arguably be the best Trait combination. Using the .223 Pistol and/or Alien Blaster is quite deadly in that way. Gifted is a poorly balanced trait though as the benefit is much higher than the drawback.
 

kingcomrade

Kingcomrade
Edgy
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
26,884
Location
Cognitive Elite HQ
In Fallout 2 I went through the game using Fast Shot along with lots of agility and the magnum (later, the gauss pistol). I was unstoppable in combat. I could usually drop at least one person per turn. (Fast Shot + Bonus Rate of Fire = 2 AP per shot, 5 shots per round, + Bonus Ranged Damage + Living Anatomy)

edit: Also, Finesse + Better Criticals + More Criticals + High Luck. Add all that together and you've got a combat machine.

Most of the traits in Fallout were very, very poorly balanced though.

Bloody Mess- Makes the gory animations worthless because you don't have to work for them.

Bruiser- Equivilant to +1 Strength for -2 Agility (in effects). No thanks.

Chem Reliant/Resistant- The fact that most people save-gamed before using drugs negated these.

Fast Metabolism- Doesn't really change a thing. Healing rate and resistances barely affect the game. The only time resistances really count (the Glow) you are using radx to protect yourself.

Fast Shot- Shoot for less AP, at the cost of an optional action called shots (which you only really need against Deathclaws in the original)? So, if I don't plan on using called shots there's no downside?

Finesse- This one, I thought, was very well balanced. I use it sometimes, especially if I'm not using Fast Shot.

Gifted- This trait is actually called "Game Difficulty: Easy"

Good Natured- It really doesn't have much of a downside, as you are going to have your combat skills tagged and so you are effectively trading 1 dollar for 2.

Heavy Handed- Negligible effect.

Jinxed- Hurts you more than it hurts anyone else, as you are going to do more shooting than anyone else in that particular battle.

Kamikaze- Jee, I get to go first in the first round of combat, and then suffer the loss of all your natural AC for the rest of the battle? Is there an upside to this trait?

One Hander- This doesn't give you anything that a few more skill points won't. If you plan on limiting yourself to pistols and the sawed-off shotgun in FO2, it's free skill points.

Sex Appeal- :roll:

Skilled- Anyone with enough INT to not be a moron gets plenty of skill points, more than you need to get through the game, and perks are much, MUCH more useful than a handful of skill points.

Small Frame- Let's face it, there are only 2 reasons for STR. The minor one is easily overcome with skill points: minimum STR requirement. The other is carry weight. You are essentially sacrificing 2 STR points for 1 point of AGI. Why would anyone take this?
 

Andyman Messiah

Mr. Ed-ucated
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,933
Location
Narnia
kingcomrade said:
Kamikaze- Jee, I get to go first in the first round of combat, and then suffer the loss of all your natural AC for the rest of the battle? Is there an upside to this trait?
Duh, silly. You're kamikaze. Use your imagination.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
I have no problem with the use of keywords by itself in Morrowind, in fact I think its a very effective system to deal with a lot of "general interest" topics, things like asking for local rumours, the speakers identity, local services, or to hear peoples various opinions on the nerevarine prophecy - basically everything that falls under general information gathering. I agree that one can imagine one's question here, and there is no need to spell it out. If I remember correctly even Fallout had this option to ask about general keywords, right?

The real problem is once you get into what is supposed to be real conversations. First off, using the topics alone, there is no branching, no decisions to be made in dialogue - even if the NPC's dialogue is nicely written, it becomes a very linear affair of clicking all topics, which is just poorer gameplay compared to having some decisions to make as to what I say. In fact the only variable in most of the dialogues was your reputation with that NPC and the only interaction in trying your luck at the rather basic admire/threaten/bribe options. Daggerfalls wasn't much better mind you, you could select which tone of voice (which skill) to use with the NPC, but in practice it was a rather uninteresting game of matching choices.

Due to the lack of choices and consequences, you are effectively limited in you ability to flesh out your character by one of the most important ways how humans convey their personality - language. How do I give an "evil" answer in MW? Sure I can intimidate, but the only effect is a change in the NPC's disposition. I can taunt, but the only result is an attack. It does not change the course of the conversation.

therefore I for once agree with a lot of the guys here: Dialogue is one of the most critical things TES should improve upon. As far as i can tell there is some improvement, but maybe not as much as I hoped for given the "start from scratch" philosophy flaunted by Bethesda.

A combination of DF's MW's approach and solid dialogue choices would be wonderful, IMHO: Keywords to ask about things of general interest.
A solid number of sensible dialogue choices PLUS "tone of voice" options for "real dialogue"
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
GhanBuriGhan said:
Daggerfalls wasn't much better mind you, you could select which tone of voice (which skill) to use with the NPC,

Daggerfall's designers at least took the effort to provide individual written lines that the PC 'spoke' (which differed according to tone of voice chosen). Morrowind's team didn't even bother with this.

It made the difference. In Daggerfall, no matter how generically, you were at least talking to the NPCs, every single time. In Morrowind you were not. And this looks set to be repeated again.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
Twinfalls said:
GhanBuriGhan said:
Daggerfalls wasn't much better mind you, you could select which tone of voice (which skill) to use with the NPC,

Daggerfall's designers at least took the effort to provide individual written lines that the PC 'spoke' (which differed according to tone of voice chosen). Morrowind's team didn't even bother with this.

It made the difference. In Daggerfall, no matter how generically, you were at least talking to the NPCs, every single time. In Morrowind you were not. And this looks set to be repeated again.



The randomization of the replies helped a little too, although soon enough you knew most of them, too. Variation by type /profession/ disposition of NPC was actually something incorporated with more detail for a lot of topics in Morrowind, but the designers failed to use the "random" condition more extensively to give a few lines for each condition instead of, in most cases, just one.

As to the PC's "lines" - that didn't really "make the difference" for me, in the dialogue department both games were bad, with slightly differently distributed (rare)strengths and (abundant)weaknesses.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom