But it doesn't seem to make sense to make 95% of the feature if it's to save resources; and you can already target the pool balls [not in VATS]... but the BB-gun is the only practical way to do so.

** Can't grenades be targeted in VATS?

Grenades are part of the creature/NPC (even if they are thrown and in the air) for the engine (weapon bone does the animation). Btw. I want the feature back that you can shoot grenades in the air (which was cut in a FO3 update because of bugs).

That the pool balls are rolling and you can kind of play it has simply todo with how the havok physics system works in FO3 (nice system isn't it ).

To get onptopic I wouldn't mind a pool minigame in FO4 but actually I wouldn't play it. Not a big fan of these minigames.

Makes sense; and I'd like that feature again as well.

I know.

Of all the minigames that one could devise, this is perhaps the least contrived.

That is really a function of the class hierarchy the code has. C++ is what is called an Object Oriented Programming (OOP) language.

An OOP language program will have parent-child relationships and inheritance built into every object created. A simplified hierarchy could be:

WorldObject (has Graphics Representation, Orientation, weight, size, and Name attributes).

A child of WorldObject is MobileObject (has Movement Animation attribute and Start, Stop and Direction functions).

You will notice that MobileObject does not have a Graphics Representation, an Orientation a Name, etc. in its definition even though it would need them. The reason they are not defined is because of inheritance, it gets those automagically from its parent class.

All of these object definitions (called classes) are put into a class library. It should also be noted that an attribute can be a class (that is to say a class can have other classes embedded in it). There are enough pool balls in the game, where they might warrant their own class, the PoolBallObject.

It would make sense to subclass WorldObject to make the PoolBallObject (i.e., PoolBallObject is a child of WorldObject). It would further make sense to subclass the PoolBallObject into CueBallObject, OneBallObject, TwoBallObject, etc.

At this point in time I would like to digress a bit and talk about a peculiar entity that can be called The Lord High Keeper of the Sacred Class Library. Every organization is different so the Keeper can be a single individual or a small committee. No matter who or what the Keeper is, he/she/they have final say as to all changes made to the class library. You cannot add to the library, delete from the library or change something in the library without the Keeper's approval. So while the Keeper is likely to approve of the EightBallObject being added to the library (since the number of Eight Balls in game is potentially large) the Keeper would probably not allow the MagicEightBallObject to be added to the library since their is only one.

If Fallout code is structured in a similar manner as I described, and if a developer wanted to make a pool mini-game, and if the Keeper approved, the only real work in changing the pool balls would be to go into the library and change the PoolBallObject's parent class to MobileObject and get the art department to create the movement animations for each type of pool ball. This would magically make every pool ball in game (including the MagicEightBallObject) a "creature" as you put it.

What I am trying to say, is that resource allocation for including a mini-pool game into Fallout is largely a function of the structure of the class library and if the Lord High Keeper of the Sacred Class Library is having one of THOSE days (it should be noted that most days are one of THOSE days for the Keeper).

Why not? Admit it, you just can't imagine it done right.

Reread my post, not only the quote. I said there would be a main objective, but not right from the start.

I did read it, and I would still have to agree with Gizmo.

If a game with a main objective started off without any main objective, I would be wondering to myself what exactly the point of anything I am doing before I find said main objective is.

Why bother doing anything but going directly to whatever starts the main objective in such a scenario? And If the main objective is something so small as to take awhile to find, why would it be interesting enough to give me any sort of urgency in doing it? And if it's something so big as to be able to be found within minutes of stepping outside the starting area, why wasn't those first few minutes just tied into the main objective in the first place to give the same some sense of connectivity, and further build the urgency of it?

I don't really see the purpose in starting off an objective based game, like an RPG ,in such a way that it looks like a non-objective based games, like the Sims, only to switch over to an objective based game a bit later..... Why not just make an objective based game from the start?

EXACTLY MAN, EXACTLY!

That's the point! You'd find yourself in a world you don't know, in a world that doesn't leave you any ties to the past from which you awoke. You would get to feel this sense of hopelessness, homelessness, uncertainty, of not knowing what to do in this world - by experiencing it firsthand! By not having any clues about what to do! Like the pc would have!

Fallout 3 started basically the same way, and yet managed to nicely tie it into a main objective from the beginning.

Being thrown into a world you don't know, or understand, doesn't mean there needs to be a lack of an objective, even if its as something as basic as "there aren't enough supplies here to last me very long, I need to find a nearby settlement to get stuff", that can be a main objective from the beginning.

No, Fallout 3 didn't start like this at all. You had something you could hold onto.

Yeah, were hardcoe the default mode, you'd have to find supplies anyway.

I want you to be able to find the path without the game telling you where to look and without you knowing that it is the path. This requires a game that is about the main quest. The war itself.

The main quest should be the war and what role you want to play in it. Why involve yourself in a war? Many reasons, no (fun) alternatives.

EXACTLY MAN, EXACTLY!

That's the point! You'd find yourself in a world you don't know, in a world that doesn't leave you any ties to the past from which you awoke. You would get to feel this sense of hopelessness, homelessness, uncertainty, of not knowing what to do in this world - by experiencing it firsthand! By not having any clues about what to do! Like the pc would have!

This is not a game; this is want of a daydream; a digital play-crib to crawl around in for the sake of exploring it. The last thing I would want is to waste a real day playing a fake one.

A game needs a definite goal (something to task the mind, and accomplish); and it needs a definite risk of failure/[forced defeat] from inaction, or poor choice action.
Indefinite and/or aimless "gaming" is an abomination; and it leads to this: http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/World_Of_Warcraft_2030.jpg

Nah, as I said there would be a main quest and the game wouldn't be a "hiking-simulator".

A game imo needs to express itself and the narrative through actual gameplay.

Having a main quest doesn't ensure that it isn't one. [HSM]

*Also: Given a forced choice of one or the other, I would say that a game can lose its narrative before losing its gameplay; and never the other way around. So from this I would say that a game does not actually need a narrative to function... Not that they aren't appreciated, and preferred present... but they are entirely optional.
Good gameplay will save a pathetic narrative; but I would say that the best narrative can be made intolerable by awful gameplay.

Absolutely.

Having a (forced) initial quest that results in the main quest will ensure you not experiencing a narrative element of uncertainty through gameplay though (because you know what to do).

That's how the rest of the series worked. The difference in FO3, was that the main quest was entirely optional... You pursued it to advance the story, not because you would fail if you didn't.

Depends on how it is written and structured (eg. how many and what options you have in the beginning - that need not be spelled out for you).

For example, if the initiation to the main narrative started from your "village" dying off on an unknown disease and you as the last survivor had to start finding out if there is a cure and who might be able to provide it so you won't die, and it is not spelled out for you that "go talk this dude right there, just follow the compass" but rather the game sets you up to get your own bearings (with multiple choices) on where to find the clues and how the narrative proceeds based on where you might end up first (without guiding you in any way), there'd potentially be a lot of "uncertainty" (and I'd argue that even more so than with no quest at all due to having a goal to pursue; the uncertainty would matter, whereas it doesn't in a complete freeroam pointlessness).

No, Fallout is the only game that worked this way and it laid out a mission for you. You had a main objective - the game didn't even let you choose not to help your Vault.

Yeah, my proposal would of course only work under certain circumstances. I've got nothing against an initial main objective. I questioned if it was needed under all circumstances and I think it's not - I even think there are (depending on the narrative structure) better solutions.

Not having a main quest given to you from the start is an interesting idea, assuming that eventually you will be able to start the main quest, I rather like it. I can see two problems with it though. One, it would be a bit more difficult for the developers to make all the multiple entry points into the main quest and make sure they all work correctly. The other is that a lot of players will probably unfortunately not appreciate sharing the sense of uncertainty the PC is feeling, I can see a lot of complaints along the lines of "Help! The main quest won't start for me, how do I start the main quest??" . Maybe I'm not giving enough credit to the players but maybe at least have a quest saying something like "You've found yourself in this strange and hostile environment, find out more about it" which would be completed as soon as you started the main quest. Still, this sounds like the "Live another life" mod for Skyrim, which is very popular and which I enjoyed.

However the main quest was started, I'd like it to not have a false sense of urgency. What I mean is, it shouldn't tell the player that the world is in an imminent danger from the big evil if the said big evil will patiently wait for the player to do fetch quests and decorate their home and pick flowers and w/e. Something like 'there is this dangerous enemy/ great treasure out there but don't go after it unil you feel you're ready' would work ok. Unless you want some parts of the main quest to have urgency, but in that case have an actual timer to complete these parts.

In that way the early part of the FO3 main quest was the most honest, I think there were a number of quite legitimate reasons for the PC not to go after Dad immediately, also Dad could be stuck in Tranquility Lane more or less indefinitely (or at least a very long time). The same can't be said about the FONV and Skyrim main quests.

That's the fly in the ointment. Even a quest like that would destroy the sense of uncertainty that no quest at all would give - firstly, it's teleological, secondly, it's giving you the certainty that the game knows how you feel and tries to ease your pain by acknowledging this, which destroys any feel of wonder. Yes, you're giving not enough credit to the players.

In Skyrim, it's possible to "live another life". In Fallout 4, it simply shouldn't be imo. It shouldn't be a big, shallow playground of consequenceless possibilities.

Just to make it clear, I simply meant that this mod allowed you to start the game in a place other than the normal starting location for Skyrim, so the main quest would not start until you got to the normal starting location (Helgen) yourself, which sounds like what you're proposing.

I don't really see why we should remove the "Live Another Life" feature, and im not really sure how exactly you would make it not possible in Fallout 4 without drastic changes to the game. In New Vegas, the day to day roleplaying of my desert ranger character is great fun, especially with the primary needs from hardcoe mode (Which I will never play without). There's so much mod added content allowing me to travel to distant lands, or just pursue some bounty hunting back in the Mojave, and this is ontop of the already many quests to do in the base game. Wake up in the morning, pack my bag, load my rifle, and lets go see exactly what is happening with these two scavengers in Westside, or take out that new leader the fiends have, or try to make first contact with the Boomers. Or just travel down the south road to Goodsprings and hunt some Gecko. New Vegas is full of so much of living another life, I would hardly call it shallow.

Thanks for clarifying this, I thought it meant more sims elements included into the game.

The main quest would not start until... is not what Fallout 4 should be about. The main quest should be what it's all about.

That's ok. I just think 'war' should become the primary aspect of Fallout. And the war should seriously affect anyone who tries to 'live a life'.

You do mean 'the only Fallout game' yes? However in Fallout 2, you are sent on a mission to save the dying village; the Elder is a blood relative, and Hakunin does warn you similarly to Fallout's own scenes of the dwindling water supply.

I don't see why Fallout should care about the player, if the player won't follow the path. They are free to abandon the vault, but the game doesn't have to continue after it dies; they go and live their life, but that's not part of the game that's on offer.

I always thought it very bizarre that the FO3 PC would squander their time dallying with a house and its decorations. They should be on an important mission, and not have time to fritter it away like that.

No, I meant 'the only game in the entire history of games'.

Yeah, but Fallout 2 didn't have a time limit, thus you wouldn't fail the GECK mission.

Fair enough. But that means Fallout was about getting the chip, which it shouldn't have been. The chip was a hook, introducing you to the real focus of Fallout - the mutant army - war.

I can see that players have fun in that, but it's not my idea of fun, especially not in games that should offer an important narrative.

It was ok in Fallout 3 (that didn't encourage you to do it in any way and that didn't heavily invest in the sims aspects). I don't need time limits, unless they make sense.

This sounds too restrictive to me, if I understand what you're saying correctly. If you have an overwhelmingly important mission that is a race against time of some sort, then logically every single thing the PC does should be done to further that mission. This means that sidequests of any kind are not allowed as they waste precious time. In gameplay terms this would not even be a linear narrative but a speedrun of the main quest, I don't think in an open-world game this kind of approach would work at all.

The game should definitely have a strong main quest, but it should also have a number of side questlines and the narrative should support the PC doing those in any order they want in their own time. I believe this is possible and generally that a narrative doesn't have to be linear to be good, as long as each (or at least most) sidequests are well thought out.

Think rather that it must be carefully decided upon. In some cases one simply hasn't the time; in other cases one might not even want to ~but the NPC has you over a barrel, and you need what they are offering. In still other cases, one may decide that this is something to do ~just not now; and they return for it later.

As it stands in the recent gamesas games... The world awaits their leisure, and nothing is more imperative than the PC's latest whimsy.