both are possible successes, the difference is one is based on the player, other is based on the dice. Having both ensure both player type A and player type B gets to do it there way. I don′t see the issue.

I'm more with the "no minigames - should be based on skills/S.P.E.C.I.A.L." camp.

Just don't think they contribute much and found 'em rather tedious.

It also has the nice advantage that the time freeze does not happen while you are doing something illegal.

The problem I see is one of balance. You can't design it to work at it's best, and do it both ways, and it will inevitably distill into exploiting the (IMO out of place) player action to get around a lack of PC skill. If that skill (point commitment) is not actually needed, then it will be spent on other skills ~effectively boosting both instead if just one.

*** This is really the same issue you have with dialogs, where the PC can only say what their mental faculties permit. Would it be acceptable to allow the player access to all possible responses despite PC deficiencies in INt and Speech, (and Charisma)? If so, then the points would go to other skills & stats, and afford the player the rewards of those commitments as well as still allowing the (premium) dialog options (which should be cut off from them).

again this is a single player game, there is no need to make both balanced against each other, just that each is fair and not to frustrating, then it′s up to each single player what they want to do.

Why is the single player aspect relevant? The rules of the game should not be left to player choice ~that's terrible game design, and devolves the experience into a "lets pretend"... "what if I had wings and could fly away from it...", "What if queens move like knights"... sort of experience.

**What is the point ~serious question, of making a PC with specified abilities, if the player can just ignore it in practice?

so your saying people shouldn′t have the freedom of choice?

Are you saying that they should have the freedom of every choice? Their choice is what to make of their character (and work within the bounds of their decisions); and to adhere to the rules of the game.

** I just don't like spineless "games" of a servile (almost fawning) nature, and prefer a tempered & time tested work of design ~meaning a well crafted rule system.

if possible and well made, yes, the player bought the game, he/she should be able to get as much fun out of it as possible

Hell no. You ever seen people's idea of imagination? Zombies and six seems to be the majority of your average individual's innovation.

It's not about choice anyway, it's about creation, we're in the world the designers create because we want to experience it, if you want to be in a world that YOU can create then go meditate for a while, that's not why I play games, I'm perfectly capable of imagining shizzle, I wanna see what other people imagine. I go see movies not to see it pan out the way I want to but the way it was intended to.

Giving people a choice is a good idea, giving them complete freedom is a terrible one, it ruins the entire point about media.

my statement was specificly on the minigame subject, not games in general.

Buying the game is paying for the privilege of access; same as paying to to access a water slide, or paying to attend a tour; this does not entitle a player to demand that they can drive the bus. :shrug:

(If applied to a rental car instead of a bus... It does not mean that the car can be pinstriped and have the rims changed )

It can be argued (rightfully) that players can play how they wish in a single player game, but when that game is purposely compromised to cater to player whim, then it ships an an inferior product IMO.

still, your going out of bound, my statement was speficly on the subject of minigames, I simply find it silly why in a single player game you can only appease one player group but not the other.

True. (see the later edit above).

A product that goes 'all out' to please everyone, cannot surpass a product that goes 'all out' to please a focused group. So I would prefer two separate games to one that hopes to sell to both markets. (The buyers choice, is which one to buy.)

**Minigames (for many) defeat a core point of RPG expectations. Designing the game to work with and without them makes them basically irrelevant (and possibly a waste of time).

*** Oblivion's mini talking game was actually pretty spot on for what it was trying to accomplish, but such an abstract activity in a game that tries for abject realism, seemed out of place IMO.

no offence, but I′m happy you don′t make games, the manual would be as thick as the bible.

Damn right :goodjob:

If I had my way the 'tell me abouts" would be back too, but would use a state of the art chat bot with a role playing AI that takes on the quirks of the NPC, and has access to its public and private knowledge of the PC's history, and reputation.

** Though really, the manual need not be an inch thick, just concise.

I voted yes!

My idea of this minigame is more like, A job.

Caravan Guard

Location
- All the Colony's including the strip
Rewards
Money for doing the job depending on how far you guard caravan
Discounts depending how far you guard the caravan
Free Stimpacks and food.
Job
You meet up with a caravan and you ask if they need help. When they say sure you follow them to there next destiantion. Random encounters will hapen along the way.
Things and people will attack you and you cant let the caravan die. The less damage they take and the further you travel the greater your reward.

I like your idea.

eh...that isn′t much of a minigame, more like a quest line.


try and avoid pushing your idea into every conceivable thread because you think it′s good. stick to appropriate threads please.

Hmmm.... yes it does get fustraiting when you try to pick a lock and fail. What about if your skills are high enough or u have a special perk you could bash the lock and break it. Yes this would make you known to the area and you are sure to be attacked. But not all people like to be stealth freaks (i actualy love being stealthy). So give em that tuff guy feel bash a lock!

Agreed. This is not what most mean when discussing minigames in cRPG's ~but it could be a mini--game, to some players.
(Like playing a guard in Oblivion, but this time the game acknowledges you).

**Also... This is essentially how it is in the earlier Fallout games, (and hopefully as it will be in FO:NV). :rock:

Why would I want to pause playing New Vegas and waste seconds or even minutes time and again on some undoubtfully trivial and very trite minigame? If I want a break from New Vegas, I'm damn well able to pause the game myself. Why should the game force it upon me time and again?

No, I'd rather all "mandatory" minigames went away. I've never understood why they're in RPGs anyway. RPG means playing the role of your character, which means that success or failure should depend on the skills of your character rather than on your personal skills.

Using FO3 as an example, I'm fairly good at hacking and fairly careful when lockpicking, which means I never get locked out of a computer and I very rarely breake lockpicks. This reduces the minigames to being nothing but unavoidable time-wasters that accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but preventing me from getting to the fun parts. However, let's consider the case that I have fine motor control issues. If so then extreme accuracy might be difficult and lockpicking difficult locks (where it seems like a few degrees make the difference between broken lockpick and open lock) would therefore be extremely hard, regardless of how high my character's lockpick skill is. Is that really sensible to anyone?

Honestly, when I play games, I play them because I like them. I haven't yet run across a single minigame I liked in any game whatsoever. They're always merely an annoyance you have to get through to get back to the game. I suppose I'll have to accept that I'll never understand why game devs keep pestering me with them, but I sure would love to see them stop, or at least be given the option to not have to waste my time playing a minigame so ridiculously stupid and trivial that a chimp would be offended by it.

Yes, the devs could simply up the challenge but then we're back to my example before, where it's the player's skill rather than the character's skill that determines the outcome, and at that point it's very debatable if the game isn't simply transformed into a sandbox adventure game rather than an RPG.


So why should people be burdened by the annoyance of dying from time to time? Shouldn't god-mode be mandatory as well? If people want to die when fighting an enemy then they can choose to do so but shouldn't they have the freedom of choice?

To answer your question, hell [censored] no! RPGs aren't adventure games.

Edit:
No choice in the way you're describing them. RPGs are all about having choices but it's also about your choices having consequences. That means that prior choices made must restrict your choices in the future. Choices made at character creation and level-up must restrict the choices you make later on. Full freedom throughout means no consequences of any choices you make.

... As well as choices opening up new avenues that may not have existed had the PC done otherwise.

I don′t see how that has to do with giving players who enjoy minigames and those who don′t a equal chance to choose if they wanna play them or not.

Maybe minigames should be givin the choice similar to random encounters on the world map.
The perks you choose determin the availablity of the choices you are givin.

If you have a moderate skill level in the required area, then you can choose to either play out the task or just bypass the test and access the area..

When I bought my smart phone I knew I would be able to cook up a custom ROM to enable the "Full" use of the hardware that I invested in.
But it is nice to be able to restrict some of that functionallity for my wifes phone.