Guys why don't you guys start a TB thread in community discussion or fallout series area, and not get this thread locked.

I don't want anything like the Oblivion talking game (even though I understand it's intent, and don't mind it ~much~ in Oblivion).
Lock picking, I'd prefer a simple skill check. The only mini-games that I would like are perhaps a real mini game found on a main frame in an old bunker, or some such.
(like the full version of Wasteland perhaps).

I don't get the whole skill check pro side, is it just for the sake of being more of an RPG?

I just find doing a minigame with bonuses from your SPECIAL and skills to be a better way of doing things, feels more immersive IMO. :shrug:

Because your character's skills should determine whether he succeeds or fails when ordered to pick a lock, not the player's skill at a minigame. This is the core of an RPG to me.

It is a matter of me (the player) telling my character (the role) what to do. And then it is the character with his or her abilities that try to perform those actions. This allows me to take on a role that has significantly different skill sets from my own.


And that is one of the differences between us. I find minigames to break my immersion and excitement. Lockpicking just doesn't give the same rush when you know that you can pick a lock in front of that Super Mutant. Making it out of combat only does not fix it, as your master sneak may be able to keep him or herself hidden from the Super Mutant.

Well I can agree with you that I think minigames should be done in real time and does not pause. If your discovered by the owner(or friend of the owner) or mutie they will deal with you or alert the 'gaurds' and when you recieve damage you will be knocked out of the picking/hacking menu.

Okie is right (IMO) and its the core of an RPG as I know it as well.

Immersion for me (at least in RPG's specifically) does not entail imagining myself as the character (personally), nor imagining that I am in place of the character (which IMO defeats the point). What then is the point of making a character at all... of giving it a name, and selecting it's (it's) strengths and weaknesses? If your PC can't pick a lock, then your PC can't pick a lock right? I find it to be a break in 'immersion' for the PC to have that lock picked for them by the player. If a PC is to retain benefit from devoting skill selections to a few skills, then they should have to accept the lack of skill in other areas as a consequence.

I just don't like the idea of auto-things, I think characters should have a chance to pick a lock even if their not skilled at it and be very difficult for them to pick it, but if you meet the requirements its fairly easy. I just like for weak skilled pickers/hackers to get a chance and be enticed to try to open it and lose precious lockpicks in the meantime, and it would be a rare occasion to unlock the safe with an unskilled character. But thats how I'd go with it.

Oh well I doubt our opinions will change.

That is what critical successes are for

So do I, but this was only a problem in Fallout 3... Fallout 1 & 2 would let your PC to attempt to pick any lock (even if they are not skilled at it, and it would be very difficult for them to pick).

Lockpicks and bobby pins (in reality I mean) don't break unless you are very unskilled and abusive with them. What you describe (as I read it), is basically how it has always been in the Fallout series (until FO3).

**Edit:
Skill checks in RPG's are meant to be impartial fate. Generically speaking...the 90% locksmith expert only fails to pick the lock 10% of the time (on comparable locks), while the 15% novice fails 85% of the time (but both can fail, and both can succeed).

Hopefully obsidian have thought about this, but all in all not a total big deal, but would be nice to see them implement this in someway from the first 2 fallouts.

If I read him correctly... J.E. Sawyer has stated a preference for thresholds as opposed to percentages. Trading away the chance at failure on a tricky lock (for example) for certainty of success with sufficient ranks. (He does this as a means to avoid the incentive to reload if one fails.)

*Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that was my impression.

Using a finite amount of bobby pins seems no different to me from that perspective as one would reload to try again with the pins that they have, or use the console to add 1000 pins. :shrug:

hmm I thought thresholds would just be for combat and not for universal equation law ingame, I don't know the first thing about coding and equations, not sure if I read your post right. :wacko: (This is me understanding coding and similar programming )

But good to know. So this means (correct me if i'm wrong, which I'm sure you will) It will be very, very difficult to get a lock opened with an inadequate skill instead of just that 1 out of a 100 shot(which is percentage).


Yeah I use alot of parentheses. (can't help it)

I have no idea. Odds are that he will correct me instead.

So do I, (it helps contain the tangents)

**My guess is that it will work similar if not identical. In the case of lock (if the lock interface is retained), the PC's skill will determine if you get to play the minigame. (I really dislike this method ~Its made worse because [IMO] Hillsfar (1989) beats Oblivion and FO3 both when it comes to the lock pick game. :banghead:)

When it comes to computer RPGs, I agree with Sawyers view. But I think it was intended for dialog and similar problems where you only get one attempt.

:foodndrink: Personally I would prefer the percentages in that situation.

If the PC is not a smooth enough talker to pull it off (whatever the situation is)... Then whatever it is doesn't happen. :shrug:
*(and even if he or she is a smooth enough talker... this way they are not infallible, and do make mistakes or occasionally have bad luck ~instead of guaranteed good).

** in the least, failure would cause the PC to take a different path, and /or get help somewhere else (or from someone else, or help someone else).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMCjI8cXy2Q

Looked like a great game for its time

I'm guessing it gave alot of text options to pick from on how to try to open the lock? Only saw small clips of it in this review. around 1:40

Actually... I have it, and what it is, is a game made of minigames.
Archery (FPS), Arena combat, horse jumping, and lock picking (along with general burglary).
Its main use seemed to be to import Gold-box D&D characters from other games, improve them, then export them out again, to import into the next game.
Its fun, and funny (sometimes), but no comparison whatsoever to D&D games from even two years before it (by the same publisher).

The lock pick game was cool because you had to get lockpicks, and had the risk of breaking individual picks, that meant that any locks that required those specific tools, could not be opened. Lock picking was timed, and the locks could get insanely difficult (possible, but better opened with a magic knock ring).
look up Pool of Radiance or Curse of the Azure Bonds... These are the pre-cursors to Baldur's Gate.

Ah, here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX30qLdoBxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqOfuE46wLQ

eeehhh, guess I'd have to try it myself to truly know a game, reviews and vids can only say so much.

Just can't wait to see all the little changes to FONV and similarities. 22 or 21 days to go?

I think I got off Topic.

MInigames in NV I hope are just the casino games.

What might be neat (too late though), would be if they put direct access to the casino games in the title menu of the game.
(not that you could keep winnings, or have it affect your PC, but just access.)

This was done in Tron 2.0 and was pretty cool, as you could play the game as normal, but you could also just load up a lightcycle arena and play the bikes.
(I wish the Witcher had done this with the dice game.)

Also a nice feature I thought about was being able to play caravan anytime with a companion (not sure about non humanoid/possible?). Maybe place friendly wagers of paltry amounts of caps like 25 to 50 or none at all and just practice your skills with them. Cass seems like the playing type and Boone seems to have one hell of a poker face.

I would choose what is the most fun, doing the work myself. Just saying since it′s a single player game you don′t have to eight what 2 methoed are the best, just have both and let the player choose if he wants he dice or his own skills determen success simple as that.

What is it with people working in extremes, in yes or no.

I enjoy the mini-games as long as they are challenging and not monotonous. Lock picking and computer hacking both come to mind, and I was annoyed by both at times and enjoyed them both at times - I think because the lock-picking/hacking never seemed to end (I had to do it alot). The gambling sounds more like it will be on the Fun side as I control when I want to play the mini-game, it isn't Forced on me every time I need to get into a higher restricted area. I do think the mini-games make sense when they are challenging, as I love the challenge. I just don't want the same exact challenge 701837049817340983 times.

Miax

Yes, i would like them to come back....
But, i think the Science hacking minigame needs improvement, also with the lockpicking.....
I think the minigames must have more effects from S.P.E.C.I.A.L ...

A defusing minigame is also interesting (This one requires cutting the right cable from a series of cable, by judging where the cable leads....) Oops! :mellow: It's too complicated

I dunno, I just don't see anything "fun" in having all options side by side - certain succes and possible success. I takes the sense of accomplishment away from the situation if, even though I beat the odds, I know I would've succeeded anyway. To me that just reeks of selfgimping through knowingly avoiding certain success. Single player or not.