It's still boring looking at the NPC wandering around. I did for "The Story" because it's Fallout 1 but actually this kind of map handling isn't my favorite. A good solution to bring the two factions together? Don't know really but I am not the guy who fast travels a lot. I like to taking attention to my surroundings and finding stuff. Throwing the player out of fasttravel in th middle of the way maybe...

If you don't think there can be a working decay/repair system, I can't help you out. There is no "ultimate solution" that'll encompass all possible situations, preferences and designs, and being "too slow" or "too fast" are vague terms at best without a point of reference. I could give you a vague rate of CND drops a notch from the "best" condition after 500 rounds and times 1.5 after that by each tier until reaching broken status, but what would you do with that without knowing how much there will be shooting? It is all about adjusting.

Define too fast and too slow for me will you.

It's not painful, it's flavorful. There is no problem of items decaying too fast or slow. It's all part of a grander scheme of things.

I assume you'd cut the repair skill altogether? See I'm thinking practical. I've proposed an overhaul of the existing system and got much dislikes, although I still think it could make things better. I'm even in favor of converting Repair and every skill into perks paid with skill points. But cutting the stuff? No way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAyKJAtDNCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IwlJOLhRA8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKAoSY5bhSw

IMO this is were gamers lack maturity (not you specifically but almost every gamer).

Not everything in a game has to be fun or raise the excitement levels to 11, we wouldn't apply the same logic to films.

The scene where Andy dufrain (shawshank redemption) is in the sewer isn't full of explosions or action but it illustrates the gruesome beleaguered position he's in which just further compounds his unwavering desire to escape.

If fallout 4 could convey the same scenario and visceral emotions like the PC's fortitude in the wasteland it would be mission accomplished even if it isn't full of action.

Heck the ending death slide of the VD in Fallout 1 is a static corpse but it conveys it's message.

This comes down to a larger question, can pain, boredom, anguish, sadness, fortitude etc be used as narrative tools in gaming like they can be in books or film?

Too fast would be something like a high damage item, in this case lets say it's 100 damage, that breaks after 2-3 shots. Sure it does high damage, and could basically kill anything in one hit, but it wears down so fast it's basically unusable unless you carry a massive army's worth of repair kits with you. No one is going to take the time to use said weapon because its decay rate is so crazy it's unsustainable, even for people who do focus on repair.

On the other hand, a weapon that does only 20 damage, yet doesn't break until after 1000 shots, is a weapon that decays too slow, as it allows you to do many more times damage then a higher end item, which it shouldn't, without breaking, making it the objectively better gun, which it should be an objectively worse gun from having lower damage.

Then we have to factor in things like conidtionals, such as a gun could do 80 damage, lower then the "best" gun which does 100, but, it has armor ingoring capabilites that allow it to do more, overall damage, becuase more of it's getting through the armor then the 100 damage gun, so its decay rate should be slightly faster, based on how much more damage it does on avarage, then the 100 dam weapons which doesnt ignore armor.

Then we have to factor in things like perks, how the armor system works to negate damage, what sort of, if any, penatlies lower item condition inflics beyond simply lower damage/armor rating, etc. etc., and how those effect overall avarage damage and armor rating.

It's honestly such a complicated mess that its no suprise almost no one actually does item decay in games anymore.

Ok, so now you have the upper and lower limits. Next thing to do is to work your way towards the center through testing. There's no game to test it out (we are not designing a game here, afterall, just posing general ideas), but you know that while the numbers on the paper don't necessarily lie you need to also take into account that even though someone would probably calculate the net efficiencies of certain weapons (also taking into account that while the lower damage weapon lasts longer, it also takes longer for it to provide that same damage in those smaller chunks, some of which might also miss, as the higher damage weapon which might become the downfall for the situation at hand in the game), most will not do that. And while not neglecting the balance in it, what matters a great deal is how it feels in practice with the context of the game and the intended experience in mind, and from as netural as possible perspective (dislike by default will always make it feel like [censored]).

Unfortunately, no game with item decay has ever got them set to a point where I feel like they have gone through even half of the general gameplay situations with most weapons, not to mention the odd special situations. Its one of those things that sounds doable on paper, finding all the average damages and what not, but in practice its far too much time and manpower to make doing so viable.

IMO, trying to fix repair is like trying to make a Model T as safe and gas efficient as a brand new car, the only real way to do so is to replace everything on it, which means you don't really have an upgraded model T, you just have that other car. I would rather they just skip to the end, and make that other car, then go through the long furitless process of replacing parts, one at a time, seeing if changing this or that part makes it as good, only to find it isn't.

A removal of item decay, and a greater focus on smithing, or in Fallout's case, item mods, would be a far greater use of time and manpower IMO. It achieves the same basic gameplay mechanic, keeping those who don't take the smithing/mechanic skill weaker via less damaging weapons, less protective armor, and less item effects, without all the hassle of imbalanced item decay rates. Though, while item mods themselves will likely be imbalanced to some degree, the use of mods at that point becomes a player's choice, rather then a forced imbalance like item decay is.

That is a pretty long list. I am surprised you manage to include it in a single page. By the way, it isn't a system at all.

Already answered A & B.

>walking isnt a system

What? Is shooting not a system also?

Also, its the apocalypse, means of transportation beyond walking aren't exactly common.

That's your assumption that not boring means "lack maturity" or "fun" not mine.

A main mechanic of a game that is based on the principle of boredom? Good luck with that! We already have Solit?r and Minesweeper .

Regarding your other mentioned emotions yes the world in FO3 is full of it. If you take the time to look at it and not haste through the mainquest with fasttravel from one action point to the next.

Yeah, games should be fun. Interactive. AND works of art at tha same tyme.

Fallout 3 had many things happen in the past, many emotional things. In the present however? Things that actually happen in the game? Less so.

It's also a flaw of New Vegas. Much of the story is unveiled through dialogue. Many things happened. But not many things CAN happen. The games don't allow to. EVERYTHING that happens is initiated by you. Every character can die, so everyone is expendable and only part of quests that don't change the game world. Everything that ACTUALLY happens somewhere and supposedly CHANGES the world... doesn't change the world. It only changes one location and resets the feeling back to the state of 'suspenseful stasis', that waits for you to do something else. The only actual change happens after the ending.

How about the Legion actually blowing up the Strip and thus forcing the NCR to completely change their [censored] plans (that are only that General Oliver [censored]ty because yeah you got it, the game needs to be static)? Can't happen, too many variables. How nagging. How about somebody ACTING in the world, without you initiating it?

Only case I remember is Ranger Station Charlie. And that's an easy one, because everyone dies and nobody notices whatsoever.

Still Bethesda surely knows how to make exploration fun. With a world map, they could even have the feeling of distance and the vastness of the wasteland back.

Oh are you forgetting the real random encounters again (which are sadly missing in NV)? The little sidequests and encounters that are placed in the world in FO3 (bomb guy, chinese radio, ... to name only two of many unmarked quests) and that the first contact with the enclave actually changes the world literally (and not only with dialogue). Yeah NV is missing a ton of that.

If you think about it the way that the relative uneventfulness (not completely dead; Fallout was never that even when nothing happened out there during the travels since the danger was always there) sets the stage for the eventual excitement, shouldn't that raise the stakes for the fun stuff that is to happen and make those events feel more valuable whereas if it is constant bombardment of... "stuff" leads to inevitable inflation, things are starting to be taken for granted?

If you count the many special encounters and little things in Fallout 3, you'd have to find just as many in New Vegas (except nothing of that is random, everything scripted). Sidequests were very good in Vegas, but that wasn't my point. My point was HOW does ANY of that ACTUALLY CHANGE ANYTHING? I know, it's not the purpose of a sidequest to influence much more than like a personal fate. But how about main quests or faction quests like in Vegas? These did only work toward another statical situation, location based.

Yes, Enclave appears and you have to be aware of that and that's cool. But it doesn't provoke much of a reaction by the people of the world. It's FOR YOU. You're given the ILLUSION that it's something (radio), but actually it's something FOR YOU. It's a reminder that YOU are important and that it's a game world where you need new enemies.

I like that the Enclave appeared, don't misunderstand me. And I'm also aware, that not everything needs to be shown. BUT if it would (and this is a suggestions thread) it would make the experience so much better for me.

I mean imagine people talking about the Enclave, maybe Enclave soldiers being the kind of people that SERVE THE PROPAGANDA OF EDEN and not stupidly reenact their hostility towards everyone, people of the general populace that you KNEW from before trying to become Enclave or trying to organize resistance/become part of it, entire towns massacred by Enclave if you ignore the previous thought, entire towns totally changing dialogue with the emergence of the Enclave outside their border, etc.

We where talking about map travelling and that it is actually boring to watch a red pointer (extreme case) wandering around the map because the game wants to give the illusion it is big which it isn't. It's a simpl cheat. Not much setup for excitement there isn't it? Yeah I know FO3 constantly bombarded the poor players with their Theme Park . Sorry not true the pacing in Bethesda games is completly yours.

General Garbage don't derail the discussion about boring map travel to the usual FO3 vs NV talk.

HA! I'm harshly criticizing each and every game in the series. None of them is perfect. You are just handicapped because you feel (and I feel with you) that there's like an unfair edge to Vegas. Vegas IS better than 3 in some regards, while 3 is better than Vegas in others. But I didn't talk about that, I talked about flaws in EACH.

And seriously, if we continue to impute that ANY of the previous Fallouts are the ultimate way to go in the future, the series might as well stagnate out of this fear induced bias.

So what did you mean by boring?Of course it's open to interpretation language is effectively an art, if i don't exercise automaticity verbal exchanges could be bothersome.

No boredom or the mundane are narrative tools.Point and case the part of Heavy Rain when Ethan is cooking his son pizza and tucking him into bed when he gets tired, it's totally mundane but it shows how disconsolate they are with life.

Again I never stated that a game should be SOLELY based on boredom that would be excessively dull just as having a game with non-stop action would have terrible pacing and could be tiresome to play.

When did I mention Fallout 3 how is it even relevant?

Yes, we are indeed talking about map travel. And it is indeed boring if you only look at it as a mere "moving red dot" rather taking it for what it represents. The "setup" I'm talking about is that of calming things down before the interesting bits (should there not be too many or any encounters during the travel). It's kind of the same thing as with waiting for picking the perks at every three (or four) levels, the little bit of wait builds anticipation and makes the content feel more valuable than if it was cleanly chained with no "downtime".

How do you mean? (exactly)


Of course it is... Try it. You can visit absolutely any place on the map ~so long as it isn't under the Ocean.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4653yy2idri4tv/Fallou%20t.avi?dl=0

** You understand... that that IS what the wasteland is; That is what's out there; sure, it's [rightly] abstracted, but it's entirely indicative of what remains of their world. Something that FO3 most definitely got ~rather absurdly~ wrong in its depiction of the Fallout world.

Yeah, this is not something I would want... For much the same reason as I'd not want to have scenes of Indiana Jones reading and eating peanuts on the flights from the university to some archaeological site... Of the video... It mimics the map UI of Fallout, but in 3D. I can't see any reason (or benefit) to actually depicting the assumed trek, to make it not assumed... That would get ~very~ old in mere minutes. The reason you make an overland map is to bypass the mundane, not live it in realtime.

The games always notified the player if anything unusual or even remotely interesting was encountered.

Like this:

_________________________________GAME WORLD________________________________________________

|| ||

|| x ||

|| x ||

|| x ||

|| ||

|| ||

|| ||

|| x ||

|| x x ||

|| ||

|| x x x ||

|| x ||

|| __________________________________________________________________________________________||

x = point of interest everything else = barren wasteland

Points of interest = 3d Fallout maps with different locations in them and adjustable scale

Then again Fallout 3 was a city and the immediate are around it. It makes sense for it to be more than just a big nothing. I think the Capital Wasteland is smaller than the Boneyard area - in realistic terms I mean, not game world terms.

Something thats always overlooked surely not deliberate.

It makes no sense to discuss map travel further here because one cannot bothered to read the whole conversation and simply jumps in with (we all know... not meant at you Nas92). As I said I already made kind of Gizmos concept for Fallout The Story and I am not satisfied as player. Sure the oldschoolers will love it and it fits for a Fallout 1 remake but actually after playing in a bigger (actually smaller) world you really feel the lack of such systems.

If you take part in a discussion you should have kept track of it, that's a natural.

How about the combination of 3d worldspace and world map? Imo it's the best of both worlds combined (as to why a world map: SCALE).

Except it isn't, neither by real world definition, or in-game presentation. Here is a map of the areas Fallout 1-2, and 3, covered, side by side(or above and below w/e)
https://i.imgur.com/PomGiNT.jpg

We can see that California is, surprisingly empty..... largely because
A. Most of it is a desert, and thus empty to begin with.
B. The scope the games covered only really left room for the largest/most important locations to be shown, since it covered so much terrain.

On the other hand, the space covered by the Fallout 3 map is far smaller, and is in a far more densly populated area to begin with, thus, it would logically have far more in it, and due to the more focused nature of the game's scope, much more of that can also be shown.

You can keep suggesting this notion that a wasteland is empty, or that the wasteland in Fallout has always been empty... but it hasn't, hell, theres MILES upon miles of stuff in places like Bakersfield, and the Boneyard, we never got the see becuase of the way the game was designed. Not to mention towns like Sac-Town, and other settlements that exist in Cali we never got to see also. There is TONS of stuff in the wastes, you just dont get to see it becuase gameplay limitations.

Yeah, like between Pittsburgh and DC and Point Lookout or Vegas and Zion. But having the game play out in such a small area like DC or Vegas also comes at the expense of exploration of factions and different lifestyles (or should logically). See it's not a bad thing to have a game cover a larger area, is it?

And be fair Fallout 3 and Vegas are scaled down too, there's actually much more there, the distances are much greater and the locations would logically be much larger (like also the locations in the olden games). You always have to sacrifice some realism. Density is good, but so is importance and variety.