You are wrong in the way that you are applying that distinction to this topic. Like I said, if sitting provided realistic benefits to the player, FO3 would be more sim-like, not less. Sims aren't characterized by pointless interactivity, unless one thinks that the lack of an ending makes everything pointless.

Sure. But atmosphere and role-playing can be pressing reasons depending on the sort of game that's being made. It would be great if every haircut in FO3 had a subtle in-game effect (and it wouldn't be any less of a sim if this were implemented realistically), but barring that, the presence of purely cosmetic character customization does make it a (slightly) better role-playing game.

I'm not sure but I suspect there might be a confusion between 'pure' simulators with the Will Wright kind of "Sim-something" games.

Apparently we do, and at the risk of dredging up the old FO1/2 vs 3 combat argument, I'd say that the first two are dramatically closer to simulations. Turn based combat systems focus on macro tactics in that the player moves playing pieces...units, and have all the time in the world to do it. Directing followers in FO2 is very similar to playing Civ II: You give orders and your units, including your player character, attempt to carry them out. Your units are defined by rules designed to simulate reality, just as units in Civ II are defined.

The more inclusive the ruleset becomes, the closer to a simulation the game becomes, and the less a roleplaying game it becomes, because players will naturally make in game decisions to min/max the system, something that simulation gamers must do. Under such circumstances, why sit in a char if it doesn't provide ME, as the player, any benefit is a question a simulation player would ask. A roleplayer might sit in a chair because they think that if they were the character, they would like to sit in the chair.

Play the game or play the character....the never ending argument it seems.

:rolleyes: I can't comment on that... but I will say that we seem to have the opposite definitions for simulator. In My book, Chess is not a war simulation, Its a strategy game draqed in a war theme (same as Go). To me "simulator" means a program that seeks to simulate [a reality or situation] to the best of the designer's ability or the the limits of the target platform (or just the budget).

It would appear that your definition of Simulator is pretty close to my definition of "Game".

when i first read this the first thing that popped into my head was amnesia, i just started checking FO3 sites today after buying game of the year edition, anyway a possible way to do this would be your in the brotherhood of steel main base, sent in on a boat/aircraft/other transport but theres a problem and your transport is attacked and explodes and you end up where FO3 is set, or anywhere else really if you went ofcourse (maybe you were sent in to spy on Owyn Lyons) and you wake up with amnesia, cant remember anything and your armor was destroyed while saving your life from the explosion
anyway its just one way to go about it if they decided to not start in a vault.

People naturally love to customize the way they look in any game when it is possible to do so. Even through all the years I ran Sojourn/Toril Mud from1988-2003, players would Never stop customizing the way they looked - and always wanted unique things to make them look distinctive over the rest. This is a very natural aspect of human culture, and it plays out in Games and Simulators and anyplace else that we go. Look at the number of Threads of just people making Great looking characters - they spend Days on it. Look at all the Armor mods, which number so greatly that they probably even out-number the smut mods!

Whether you call it a "Simulator" or a "Game" you can be sure of one fact; Bethesda has a simple rule about "Fun". If an aspect of the game is deemed "Fun" for just about everyone who might play it, then it is allowed. There are in fact articles and in the Making of Fallout3 CD in which they clearly state this, and furthermore state that alot of Fallout3 content did not make it into the final game because it did not pass the "Fun" test. This makes total sense from a company perspective, as the goal is to Make Money - which is achieved through making a game that the Most People will buy.

So how Realistic a Simulation might be, it is just that - a simulation. Gizmo does make the distinction between the two, but in my view both perspectives don't focus on the least common demoninator - the Fun test. Simulators and Games are so similar that we could make parallels and contrasts all day - but are they Fun for the Majority of players who buy these games?

That dear Watson, is the question.

Miax

For my own two cents on some of these topics being discussed:

1) I actually think F3 did a decent job of thrusting you into a new environment in a way that encourages exploration while also giving you a clear goal to pursue at your leisure with a respective amount of... "ticking clockiness?" (In that the MQ at that point isn't necessarily such a big deal that it would seem to be "out of character" for you to go off doing sidequests; and actually could concievably fit into the character's motivations - ie, even if you're exploring; it could still ostensibly be with the hope of finding more clues to your Father's whereabouts. And many of the sidequests the character is likely to pick up early on into the game also serve to guide the player out into the world at large, as well.)

And I've also always been a fan of playing a character that knows as much about the land I'm playing as I do. By being an outsider, I don't feel like I'm lacking knowledge that my character would realistically have possessed. That's the problem I would foresee with playing as a PC that originates within the gameworld, already. (Unless I'm playing a Tribal from an isolated village, for example..)

2) On "Simulators" vs "Games" vs "RPGs," I don't think we're all agreeing about what these definitions actually mean. It seems (to me) that Kjarista's concept of a "Simulator" runs very close to what Gizmo (and myself as well, actually,) would consider to be a "Game." To me, a game is about the rules you're playing with. Something like Civilization, or adding more rules to every action and giving that specific action a clear consequence pushes it more towards "Game" territory than anything else. You can have rules in a "Simulator," but the idea of such is not to provide clear consequences for each action, but to place the simulated variables into a context with the goal of providing a more believable depiction of real life.

For me, it's less about the quantity and aspects of various rules and modifiers; and more about the purpose they are serving. In a game, the rules are abstractions that are contextually pertinent to real life situations; but which can be approached in that same abstracted manner. ie, in a "Game," I'll have my character crouch behind a crate because it gives me a +2 to aiming, or modifies an enemy's chance to hit me by -5, or whatever. Ideally, these rules are intuitive because they bear clear relationships to real-world situations - I can guess I'll get a bonus modifier when crouched because common sense dictates such. But I can still "play" the game based on these rules in an abstract manner - the same way I "play" a Poker game, based on using the available rules of the game to my best advantage.

In a "Simulator," I don't even necessarily need to know any of the math going on behind the scenes - as the idea is to more accurately model real-life situations. In fact, the more that goes on unseen, the more believable the end result will be. An example of "Simulation" elements, I think, would be that addition of a physics engine. If an object is falling, a more "Game-oriented" method would be for specific defined rules to dictate the speed of that drop, and it's current position. (ie, something falling x hexes per turn, or crossing so many gridpoints per second, etc.) Because those variables can be quantified and taken advantage of, as abstracts. ("I jump out of a plane and pop my parachute - I have 5 turns (or 60 seconds) before I land, because the game (or the clock on my HUD) says so - so then I can then decide how to best make use of that available time.)

In a simulation, however, it's the physics engine that defines the rate of fall, or how an object responds to various forces. I can still make intuitive use of common knowledge to work situations to my best advantage - but there are no longer any abstractions to use as tools for my decisions. I find myself falling, and I know I'll hit the ground in the amount of time it takes me, which I will have to intuitively judge for myself based on the information available to me. (Just like I would have to in real life - hence the word "simulation.")

"Roleplaying Game" can fit anywhere within either of those, I suppose. And I think it's also important to remember that the term "RPG" isn't a strictly-delineated definition. If you're playing as a character, and doing what they would do - then you're "roleplaying." Whether or not you're "immersed" has nothing to do with whether or not your roleplaying - nor does playing a game that's more or less a "Simulation" or a "Game." Everyone has their own preferences, and each game is going to have it's own priorities. Ditto on the whole "Simulation" vs "Game" thing. It's not an expression of value - one or the other is not inherently "lesser" by it's own virtue - it's all about what each player is more interested in. Some don't like seeing underneath hood, and other do. It really is that simple.

3) ... And back to the whole "chair" thing - I actually like it when every action I make in-game has a corresponding consequence. Even something as mundane as eating or sitting in a chair. I don't need it to be strictly proportionate to it's real-life counterpart; but I find it obviously more intuitive when they're related. Because when I play a videogame, I'm concerning my in-game actions with what actually affects my character. If I don't need to sleep or eat or sit, or it gives me no useful and relevent bonus to do so - then I don't. I still imagine those things are happening to my character, I just don't concern myself with them in real-time. The same way that I figure Capt. Kirk goes to the bathroom on occasion, but don't see any real need to actually see it every time he realistically would have to do so - unless it would serve to usefully further the story he's taking part in.

(Of prime importanace is that I'm very much still "roleplaying." I'm still doing whatever my character would do. I don't have to "act" every single moment to be roleplaying every bit as much as anyone else who plays in a less abstracted manner.)

I find it sort of interesting, at times, this sort of debate. Back in my tabletop RPG days, we did the same thing - we didn't narrate each and every action our characters made. I'm sure they spent a lot of time sitting and eating and going pee, but we didn't narrate those portions unless it was pertinent to the action currently taking place. We also knew a lot of Live Action Roleplayers (and actually more than a few tabletoppers, as well,) who were basically of the opposite mindset. Who believed that the character did nothing that was not "acted out." Even back then, there was many a heated debate over what was "true" Roleplaying. I think it's funny that in the transition to videogames, the debate remains the same... (Even though I still don't think there is such a thing as "true" roleplaying...)

Indeed, I agree with pretty much all of what you said. Thats was how my friends and myself played out TT sessions back in the day. I never really saw the point in the whole "larp" aspects in a videogame. Mainly because it was basically you sitting in your chair watching your character sit in his/her chair and in effect doing nothing. Nothing against those people if that is fun to them that by all means sit and stare on, I just like to actually DO things and get a respose from the other characters in the game. Since FO3 isn't a MMO where everyone is a human and could respond to anything you did, it losses that whole aspect of interaction.

Probably worth mentioning, as well, that I've done my share of LARPing and the like. I also used to play a lot of TelNet-based MUSHes and the like - my most memorable of which operated on LARP-like rules (and where we actually did "act out" even the most mundane of actions.) I've had fun with all "types" of roleplaying, but my preferences these days - at least as far as videogames are concerned - lie more towards the "game" aspects (at least, using my own personal definition of what that entails.) I can't help it - I'm a rules nerd. For me, lots of rules and complicated calculations not only don't detract from my sense of "immersion" in the game; but actually serve to reinforce it.

Lest we get completely off-topic, though...

I don't think I'd mind a Fallout 4 that went completely towards the "sandbox simulation/ LARPing" side, and put all of the game mechanics totally behind the scenes. That wouldn't inherently mean that you wouldn't have any way of differentiating your characters beyond their appearance and what weapons they used. Just that you wouldn't necessarily have to get "bogged down" with all of that stuff; like skillpoints and such. What sort of game mechanics would exist to determine whether you were better at lockpicking and sneaking, or shooting guns and hitting people, I'm not going to speculate on. (Mostly because it would detract from the point I'm trying to make.)

I mean, if that's what a lot of people want, is to be "immersed" into the game; then anything that pulls you out of that immersion to show you a character screen or a barter selection, is only going to get in the way, anyway. Something like that might be sort of interesting.

On the other hand, I don't necessarily think we can't all have our cake and eat it, too. Going back to the chair example - if you're more of a "LARP" sort of player, then you're going to be sitting in that chair anyway. If doing so confers some sort of benefit to the actions that you might be undertaking, then I don't see how it wouldn't be a win/win for everyone involved. It would be something subtle, of course - you don't need a big blinking sign on the screen that tells you you're getting a bonus to your abilities or anything like that. And simply giving you a couple of temporary skill points while seated, for certain actions, is probably not taking full advantage of the possibilities. (Like - I don't know - lowering the time it takes to mix chemicals or repair your gear if you're seated at a table where you can work better, etc...)

Finally, having more involved game mechanics doesn't inherently mean they wouldn't be intuitive (or that you'd even have to know the effects of everything you're doing.) Or that it would in any way lead to "min/maxing," (which I find to be a derogatory term - or at least was in my tabletop days; when it meant trying to make a "power" PC at the expense of creating a multi-layered and interesting character.) And even if did - we're talking about a single-player game, after all. If some dude wants to make sure they always have the "best" Attributes, Perks, and Skills - that's not really my problem. (And in a well-balanced and thought-out ruleset, such concepts just aren't possible, anyway...)

It's nice that the PC can manipulate almost every object in a room, but it's meaningless if NPCs don't react it to it other than saying "Watch out where you're going". How about they actually become violent when you're wrecking their room?

Gothic series have these nice touches where drawing a weapon in a city will make guards first warn you, then attack you if you don't put it away... but once you gain their trust, you can run around with your weapon drawn.

Great points nu_clear_day! Very good description of the different possible angles we might see in the next game. It will indeed be quite interesting to see what Bethesda goes for in the next game.

In my view there are a couple of factors that stand out for me:

Given the number of bugs in the core engine now, combined with the new Id software they have access to, leads me to believe that we wont have the same engine in the next game. (i.e. we won't get an "upgraded" Fallout3 engine like we got with an upgraded Oblivion engine for Fallout3). I think this because in any large software project, which I work with every day (just not of the gaming variety), there definitely is a Pain Threshold for how far any company is willing to go for a specific software platform. The decisions on weather to dump Platform XX for a newer Platform YY is always done on business-grounds and is based on alot of indicators. How advanced XX is compared to other games, how easy XX is to modify for a new game, how expensive XX is to maintain and build on (where the bugs come into play), what's available for new technology today and how easily that can be ported into XX, licensing considerations and people costs for building a new engine, upgrading the old or making a cyborg of new and old. Its a dizzying array of factors really, but very few of them have anything whatever to do with how the game will come out (i.e. how much of an RPG versus FPS versus etc).

Based on all of that, my prediction given what little I know about Bethesda's current situation (tons of bugs, difficulty with game consoles, and the new Id code available), my view is that they wont go with an "Upgraded Fallout3 Engine". However nor do I think they will completely abandon it given how damn good it is compared to others, and that even other Gaming companies (Obsidian) was willing to forgo making any engine changes for New Vegas, but instead went with Fo3 and the GECK). The GECK makes Fo3 extremely powerful, both for other gaming companies but also for Bethesda's own ability to pump-out levels. I can tell you that in general the modding community Loves the GECK.

Thus my prediction is that we will get a Cyborg-style change from Bethesda, where they combine elements of Id's FPS code and 3D processing code with elements from the Fo3 code (stuff like the NAVM system, spell system maybe, Sound system, basic organization of objects perhaps with SpeedTree again, etc. Here I can't predict Which elements they will keep, but I am confident that in a new Cyborg-Engine Bethesda will be confident-enough in some of the features they have developed that they wont want to loose them. Some things I'm sure they will be glad to get away from, but some features are too good to give up when many aspects of Fo3 Technology work just fine for games. We'll see how close I come, but I predict we will get a new Cyborg engine that looks different and mostly works differently, but in which many aspects will "feel" familiar.

One big benefit for Bethesda is that by making a Cyborg they save money - lots of money. They save it on development costs they don't have to spend on a totally new engine, they save on QA costs and training costs because the aspects of the engine that they keep, they already know. They save on time as well, for the parts they keep will allow level-designers, artists, animators, etc to work within familiar bounds using technology they know. Most of all they save Time as a Cyborg goes together alot faster than a 100% new engine, and Time = Money. I for one would be very satified with a new Beth game that used the Id 3D engine and alot of their own technology, while scrapping some of the less-well-developed aspects. Another big benefit is that by bolting-togehter a new engine, they will find some of the old bugs they couldn't find before - and will eliminate others by dropping some aspects and code out of the old engine.

A downside They may make a few new bugs to be sure with a Cyborg, but the savings in cost will far out-weigh that risk IMHO - and as Beth has chosen to do in the past when it comes to bugs. I would actually consider Bethesda a "Bug Friendly Company" - in that bugs are not nearly as painful to Beth as they Seem to us as players. I mean despite the bugs, Beth knows that we Will still buy their products, enjoy their products and in general, the bugs don't make any Significant impact on earnings. So bugs are Okay, as long as the roar of complaints from the masses stay below some critical mass. I'm sure for some bugs that are major, they will take the time to fix and do put out regular releases. But in terms of allowing bugs around, I figure Bethesda rather spends their time making new product versus repairing the old product - even if it drives some players crazy.

I do predict that Beth will keep-up with the tradition of releasing a "GECK", as we modders actually do help them find bugs and I know Beth really enjoys some of the mods we come up with. I think Enclave Commander did more to win Todd Howards heart than any other mod, and will hopefully convince him that continuing to support their modding community is an investment worth making. I will stop short of making predictions over how much RPG or FPS we get in the new game, other than to say I love the RPG "open-world" concept alot more than FPS - I've played that to DEATH over the years. I hope for another Elder scrolls, but I'll take whatever they make!

Cheers,

Miax

Personally, my money's on them switching over to the Rage engine.

If they stick with Gamebryo for Fallout 4, they're still going to have to pay the licensing fees to do so. And I don't think the quantity of bugs found in Fallout 3 has as much to do with that specific engine than it does their implementation of it (and the fact that it's an RPG - which requires a lot of scripting for all of the quests; and therefore more opportunities for things to go wrong.) Even if they have to pay the same price to license the Rage engine from id that they would to license Gamebryo from it's company - Zenimax still owns id (and Zenimax basically is Bethesda, so it's not like the money's going to be going anywhere.

Regardless of the engine they decide on, they can still put out a GECK for it. Which is basically a modified (I'm assuming, though it could even be the very development tools they use in-house, as well) SDK that they used to put the game together in the first place. Every game company out there could do the same, just as easily. It's not an inherent property of the Gamebryo engine.

I'm also guessing that Obsidian is using Gamebryo not for it's popularity, so much as that doing so allows them to re-use pretty much all of the resources already put together from Fallout 3. (Down to textures, models, items, etc.)

Plus, with using what is now an in-house engine; they have to be able to get better tech support than whatever quality they got from Gamebryo. My understanding of how all of this works is that the Developer licenses out the engine (which is basically the tools used to develop the game - in the same way that I can choose between PhotoShop or PaintShop to make digital art,) which comes with classes and tech support to train the designers in how to use these tools; and some degree of long-term tech support for when they find themselves in a jam. All of that would be more cost-effective to work with a company that you already own.

Besides, when I heard that id was bought out by Zenimax; that's one of the first things I thought about. id makes very high-quality games. But they're also masters at building engines to develop those games with, as well. Some of the more exciting things I've heard about the Rage engine have nothing to do with what we'd experience as players of the end-result, but with advances in ways their engine allows designers to put those games together.

I'm aware that alot of "hardcoe role-players" would love a game that allows for total immersion, but you can't forget about the other side of consumers, casual players. Now my definition of a casual player is someone thats takes a few hours out of their day to sit down and play a video game. I consider myself a casual gamer. I like to play until late at night and play on the weekends but for something as overly complicated to be on par with eve is a little overwhelming. I don't really want EVERY action my character does to have some effect in-game. That doesnt mean I dont want any interaction or consequences, but things like sitting or using cutlery in order to gain a bonus? That's a little much imho. I personally like the minigames in fallout 3 and hope to see more of that in fallout 4, such as a limb surgery minigame, a repair minigame, etc (including the lockpicking and science minigames of course). This adds to the immersion factor also, so it's a win-win for both groups of players.

and In the next game I'd like to see the ability to choose your race (ghoul, raider, vault dweller, super mutant) all with unique starting points and stats

Complexity doesn't really have to mean extra work on the part of the player, however. Not if it's done right. Sure, with something like Eve there's a very large learning curve - but for an RPG like Falout, you really don't as a player need to understand all of the inner workings of everything you do. Let's say if, for example, your Strength attribute modified over a hundred different things depending on your attribute level. Well, the computer takes care of all of that. So long as the effects are intuitive, you don't really need to worry about how many many more points of damage you do when hitting someone with a STR 5 over a STR 6 - or even how much of an effect that damage rate has depending on exactly which part of the head you're hitting them in. All the player would need to worry about are fairly obvious things, like that you're going to be stronger if you have a higher STR, etc.

Back to the sitting down in a chair example - it wouldn't have to be something you'd have to do. The bonus wouldn't have to be some sort of major thing so that you'd be severely handicapped every time you tried to hack a computer just because you didn't feel like dragging a chair over to the terminal. It might even be something that most people wouldn't even notice. A good ruleset isn't about punishing the player; or even adding in game mechanics for their own sake.

Raiders and Vault Dwellers, and even ghouls are all/once were humans.

And explain to me how bethesda could get a Super Mutant or even a ghoul to be playable, while still being believable.

would all depend on the setting.. time and place.. lets say you choose one of those options at the beginning of the game.. default youre a vault dweller.. if you choose gouhl, youre exposed to a minor amt of FEV and radiation say by a nearby explosion tha cracks the vault.. if you chose SM, youd get dipped after a vault raid, or something. its not impossible.. it just takes finding the right setting and storyline to make it all work..

even if they didnt go that route they could always make them sidequest perks (consequences)

i would imagine they would ahve to do a few differetn dialogue options for that type of scenario, as well as a different set up for the beginning and ending.. it would all dpend on how much time and moeny theyd want to allocate to those resources..

although.. at this point, i would imagine most of the storyboarding has been done.

Well like I said, each race race would have a different main quest or starting quest

though after thinking it through, super mutants would kinda be unplayable, unless super mutants gained the ability to reason and such (unless your super mutant was like fawkes or uncle leo)
I think a super mutant race is still plausible though

marcus was smart.. i believe the Fbible says that large amts of radiation prior to FEV contact is what causes stupidity.. but it may also depend on the strain.. damn.. ro was it dipped.. gotta go back and read up again...

even if it did make your character dumb though, its not to say its unplayable, theyd just have a lower INT... would still also be possible to have some kind of brain surgery (maybe luck deciding how sucessful the op was), or rad-ginko-biloba lol...


thats the grat thing about a new game.. new avenues.. so long as it doesnt go against fixed concepts, its all doable.

The problem here is that the greater the consequences of stat placement, the more likely that a player will end up with a character they don't want to play. If i wanted to have a sniper tupe character, I might not be interested in strenght,e xcept for, say, the ability to carry a reasonable amount of stuff. Well, how much is that? If I have never playerd the game before, is a str of 5 enough for carrying a reasonable amount of stuff? Do stats determine skills later? how much perception do I really need? Does the sniper perk allow me to do more damage that the combination of perk x + y?

So, the greater the complexity of stat placement, for example, the more of a learning curve is required to be able to select stats that will provide a character that the player wants to play to the end.

to me I'd think that would be covered in documentation either outside the game (Instruction manual) Or with the in game pip cards, in the originals you can see the formulas for all SPECIAL derived skills written right there in the info box.

http://bulbage.com/fallout2.html Look at the Skills section.

Also like in the originals when making characters they had everything displayed So you would know your carry weight with str. 5, and your action points and so on and so forth. The rest is well playing the game and getting a feel for it I would say. they would learn from there first character and there next would be better. What your getting at to me is that the system should be so simple or dumbed down that they are pretty meaningless to even have them in the first place. It's sort of like how they worked the Action points in FO3. The amount of shots you can take with AG 5 is pretty much the same amount you can take with AG 10.

*Agility*
Fallout 3 (5 vs 8):
AP - 75 vs 81 (practically no difference; you need to put 3 extra stat points into Agility to get an extra shot with a pistol)

vs.

Fallout 1 & 2 (5 vs 8):
AP - 7 vs 9 (the difference is, basically, an extra attack per turn, which is huge)

Don't strawman my arguments, please. The point I was trying to make is that complexity carries cost. Not everyone wants to research game mechanics before they play. There has to be predictability at character creation. I'm not talking about crunching numbers here. Powergamers will do that anyway. What I'm interested in is having a character at end game that is fun to play, and still conforms to whatever RP template I had envisioned.

I'm saying they don't have to do "research" they just play once and they'll get a feel for it.

Its a small thing, but if it were possible to see all hotkeyed weapons equiped on a character instead of just a single weapon equiped on a character, that would be really neat. I mean, say 4 spots for pistols on the body. 2-4 spots for rifles. That sort of thing.

But, like I said, its a very small hardly important thing.

My other wish, I would like to see pistols and rifles divided up between two different skills, and I would like to see all energy weapons divided up between pistols and rifles. Energy weapons should just be more powerful/higher level variants of pistols and rifles, not equally powerful but different weapons that are, for some reason, classified as "more advanced."

i rather like being able to allocate the guns how i see fit, rahter than having designated slots for particular items