First of all, I hope this is the right forum for this sort of topic.

Second, I'm not all that crazy about how the SPECIAL rule set was represented in Fallout 3

Thirdly: I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess many others aren't either.

I'm not here today to point out shortcomings (perceived or actual) of the system employed in FO3 or start yet another debate on the "definition" of an "RPG" or "FPS" and most of all, I am *not* here to debate turn based vs real-time.

What I am interested in is getting an idea of exactly how many people out there have alternate ideas of how SPECIAL can be better applied to the "First Person Perspective, Real-Time Role Playing Game" (FPPRTRPG?) and what these ideas are. (Ha Ha "FPPRTRPG" sound like farting)

Since it wouldn't be fair to ask around for ideas without bringing anything to the table, I'll start:

I would propose a sort of "lock on" mechanic, where the character is automatically oriented towards a selected target. In this way, the player wouldn't have to be burdened with trying to maneuver the cross hairs him/herself and all calculations pertaining to hitting or missing will be character stat based rather than player skill based. Obviously, I'm not particularly good at FPS games so I think it is a relatively good compromise between the frustration of trying to track a moving target of FPS games and the tedium of the turn-based solution.

Thanks

Are you discussing SPECIAL or VATS?

Vats is the rather unique critical-hit targetting system, and SPECIAL is the seven character attributes, strength, perception, etc.

I think you could likely get all the original implementation of the Attributes working in this sort of game without too much pushing and shoving.

For example, there's no real reason to not have STR affect your accuracy with weapons you don't meet the minimum requirements for. Or to have PER once again have an impact on your accuracy at range.

Personally, I'm not sure why the system was, well "dumbed down," for Fallout 3. I really can't see how it makes the game inherently better to arbitrarily streamline a system that was already in place.

Most of the stats could have exactly the same effects it did in the originals, really. Agility might need some though, though. Maybe higher Agility lets you move/ jump higher/ quicker, or even gets you a bit of a defense bonus. Personally, I think it might be worthwhile if higher AGI rewarded you with a higher rate of fire and faster reload times, too.

Eh, that's my two caps, anyway.

Right and right again.



I have to agree with nu clear here. Not much really needs to happen other than making it work as intended. It was arbitrarily streamlined and doesn't need to be. One thing (and it really wouldn't be hard to bring back because I know there are mods at NMA that do this) is to make SPECIAL affect skills with skill checks/rolls instead of percentages/thresholds. A while back I made a (really tedius) post which compared the effects of each aspect of SPECIAL between Fallouts 1 & 2 vs Fallout 3. Much of what's lacking stems from Fallout 3 having fairly generic and poorly written dialog in the first place, seeing as how many of the SPECIAL attributes affected different dialog options. It wouldn't really make a damn difference if all we're going to get is the same kind of crap I've parodied in my sig-line.

Those are the first two changes that need to be made: skillchecks/rolls & better writers.

Without that SPECIAL will remain broken and worthless.

I think the basic reason why the system was placed in the game the way it was because of the fact it was less time consuming for the Developers and we got the game sooner.

I do feel like there is something missing from the game with out the added stat buffering that came from having the original SPECIAL system. We can hope that in the next Fallout game we see a ton more. I have a feeling that Bethesda's MMO that they are working on will more then likely be a Fallout MMO if Interplay doesn't get the 30 million by April of this year. We would be so lucky as to have some of the original people from Fallout working on the game for Bethesda after Interplay goes back into its hole if they don't get that money. Here is to hoping we see Bethesda look at hiring those who are on the Vault13 Project if Interplay loses the rights to produce the MMO. But getting back on track I do think that making some of the skills reliant on two stats needs to be put in the next game to give it that complexity of game play the originals had and that I believe Bethesda can implement. Here is to hoping for the future.

I don't know if the OP was talking about SPECIAL or VATS, but for those interested, I highly recommend Alexander Strahan's "Closer to Classics" series of mods on the Nexus.

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=2686 - brings back traits, perk rate, and adds or modifies existing perks to be closer to the originals, while still being optimized for FPS play.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=1420 - follows the original calculation for hit points based on ST and EN. You'll no longer be a walking superman from start to finish.

As well as Shabador's http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=802 - Tag skills become more meaningful, as they should have been. Your Tag skills increase faster than the others.

I'm using all of these right now and I say they're closer to what I had imagined a Fallout FPS port would be.

This is all well and good (it's fantastic, actually) but it's even MORE infuriating that fans had to make the game closer to the mechanics of Fallout than the new Fallout developers could/would.

I see it as a good thing that we as a community of fanboies can correct the mistakes we see without being beat on by mean Dev's who would send a pack of Lawyers sending E-mails if they wanted to have mod's shut down. I think the Modders out there could have used something to do and who knows they could be hired at Bethesda to help with Fallout 4. I mean sure it can be something of a put off to realize that the developers got lazy and decided to go the easy rout instead of the long and argious rout. However, I as a Fallout fan am still happy to see Fallout 3 and hope that the future will be even brighter for the Fallout franchise. Now if only we could see into the future and tell if Interplay will have the 30 million to start production on the Fallout MMO by April of this year, I think we could all pretty much cry bloody murder then. Because Interplay would only have 2 more years to get it out which means that they would have to rush the game over a 2 year period and I don't think Chris or Jason like being rushed in any way and sense neither of them or the directors in the art department have had any experience with an MMO I don't think Interplay has a chance with financing. I am getting off track and I will stop now and I am sorry to have Hijacked the thread. Any way I just think we can hope for the future and that these despondent dev's really go back and look at what made Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and to some extent Tactics so good. I may get beat on for being a Tactics fan but you all can kiss my *. I no matter what enjoy Fallout 3 for what it is and what the future holds and what we may have yet to see.

Me too, but the only way I can see it being brighter is if they fix that which is broken. On their own...without the help of the community.

Look, I think it is great that our community even understands what to fix and how to fix it unlike some games I play where the average level of competency for the dev's are that of a person under mind control no less controlled by marketing. I am speaking of SOE and the game is Star Wars Galaxies. If you want to talk about frustration please I will be more then happy to derail this thread with why I hate $OE. I think my point is made however

Also, I don't think it's necessarily "lazy" or "incompetent" Devs that are responsible for this. I'd love to see an interview with Todd or one of the other high-ups talking about this in detail. I might not agree with their reasoning, but I have a feeling there was one.

Frankly, I think it's likely less about it being somehow "harder" to keep SPECIAL the way it was in the previous, and speaks more about their design goals for this game. I've seen interviews where they talked about not wanting the player to feel like they made a "bad" choice at any point in the game. I think their implementation of the Attributes in this game reflects this philosophy. There's no "wrong" way to spend points on your Attributes because it has little to no real impact either way.

Like I said, though. I don't think this is due to some imagined incompetence on the part of the Devs, I don't see any sign of that. A bit of a learning experience, certainly. I might not agree at all with the direction they went, here, but I also think it's working fairly close to how they had wanted it to.

I guarantee there was a reason and I also guarantee it is one I'd disagree with all my heart on. I never said "lazy or incompetent" (not saying you were addressing me there) which is why I included the "would" next to the "could" a few posts up. Frankly, I believe comments like these say it all:



Which really, is part of a bigger problem I feel we've discussed at length already. The problem of catering to the idea that you can do anything, anywhere, anyhow without having to have the knowledge of what kind of character you want to role-play going into the game. I think another part of this bigger issue here, is that Todd and Emil's idea for how the game should be approached is much different from Tim's idea being that quests need to be able to be solved either through fighting, sneaking or talking and each one of those methods should prove to be rewarding for the player. I'd bet that the Bethesda developers wanted to respect this ideal but in order to hit such a wide market they needed to dumb it down enough that no matter what kind of character you were you'd be able to approach all three of those methods in some sort of homogenized way that, for me, didn't leave me with a great sense of accomplishment in regards to the kind of character I thought I was building.

Heh, it is. But I guess the price we pay for this "next-gen" of gaming. Eventually they'll just charge us for a full SDK, heh.

I am feeling sort of bad now after not getting my real point across. Okay, Now let me see if this clears it up, I think I got you on the wrong track of thought with what I ment. What I was wanting to convey was that a lack of Vision in a development team is disturbing. Especially when the game happens to be part of a beloved IP where many of the fans have a particular expectation of how the game should metamorphosis from the ?ther. The problem is these expectations can't always be meet as is demonstrated in a multitude of titles that include SWG (all though nothing came before this game yet still because it was Star Wars it had no less of an expectation set for it by fans of the IP) and Fallout 3. Now with this knowledge in mind Fallout 3 was more then likely going to be played by a multitude of gamers who know nothing about the Fallout Universe and what has come before it, which you did convey with your statement aqualamb, as far as the style, the atmosphere, and the game play that most Fallout out fans have come to know and understand. Now, again, I think the problem lies in that we who view our individual histories with Fallout 1 and 2, and to some extent Tactics, realize, as fans, that we demand the best and no less then that, with respect to what we are accustomed, and in part, desire of any developer who keeps the flame of our beloved :fallout: game. These desires lead down a path that demand changes to our :fallout: games from their original conception, into something that seems like the people behind it didn't really try to keep the elements that make the the game for us great. The specifications that would have impressed us as Fallout veterans could have been the death nail for the game for many players not familiar with the saga, and lets face it, if you were not a fallout fan between 2000 and the time when the news about Bethesda getting the rights to the game, it is impossible to define to the people who never experienced the feeling of how much "Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel" made Fallout fans want to punch small animals, the only reason why games get dumbed down, as we all know, is because of the demographics the company wants to reach. As to why this is, I can't say, or to hope to understand why is to risk losing IQ which would most likely happen with these revelations, of course it is a risk I am not willing to take, I need all the Brain cells I have left, mostly so I can kill them with large amounts of Alcohol at some point :goodjob:. I do not think the programmers for SOE or Bethesda are in and of themselves completely moronic, the catalysts are the changes in both games are the same, the desires of the players and what will make a person want to buy the game and also the more positive experiences the gamer has with the game the more he will recommend it to someone who has never experienced the game. With this Knowledge garnered from these facts our own desires may very well be shared by many of the developers, or it could be that they expected that the modders would expand the quality of game play for Fallout 3, and for now I am giving Bethesda the benefit of the doubt. For all we know they may not like what they had to do and they could very well voice their opinions about it and ask if they could improve or add elements from the previous games and that lack of vision may only have been a way to gather people around the camp fire to listen to the story. Now that Bethesda has a hook in a few minds with Fallout 3 I am hopeful and I have given, what I hope is a clear reason why I have hope. I hope that this clears up the way I actually feel about the developers and that your thoughts about me thinking of them as lazy or despondent are dispelled.




Did the comment this quote inspire come from the test of my finger tips because if it did I must have been on something. I have been around games for a very long time. I started my computer gaming when Death Race 2000 came out, it was the one where if you hit people you got Devil points and if you missed them you got Angel points, any way I played the King's Quest Games, I didn't play Wasteland when I was a kid and I know I missed out I tried to get it through a site that had it but I could never get the game to run on my PC. I played X-COM which was one of my main reasons for getting into Fallout 1 after playing the demo from my Computer Gaming World Magazine back before it was Games For Windows Magazine. If you aren't talking about me then I hope that we can talk more at another time and that this outburst didn't derail this thread to much.

You muddled up your quotes a bit but I'm assuming you were addressing nu clear day first and then me, right? As for what I'm quoting of you here...(this is getting confusing and silly, hehe) no, I was not addressing you, I was addressing the situation at large based on what nu clear day brought up. I don't think we actually disagree as much as we agree, just a bit of confusion it seems.

Nah, I think I derailed the thread a bit with the whole disclaimer. I wasn't pointing my finger at anyone, it's just a point you sometimes want to make sure is made in a thread like this, before people start getting the wrong idea.

I think that, yeah, the "dumbing down" likely had to do with trying to reach a wider demographics. But again, that's just speculation. I'd still really love to hear an in-depth interview with some of the Devs about many of these things, just sort of understand their side of things.

Because I think we'd all agree here that we absolutely disagree that you'd need to "dumb down" the system just reach a wider audience. A complex system that actually means something, can also be totally intuitive and quick to learn, after all. Really, if we made the SPECIAL system an order of magnitude more complicated, with the Attributes affecting just about anything you wanted to do - the player's own input on the whole thing would still be the same. (Spending your points during character creation and at level up.)

Being more complicated wouldn't mean any more or less points to spend, or that you still wouldn't have an idea of what the Attributes did, after all. If you found you weren't doing as much close-combat damage as you'd like, you'd increase your STR, after all. If you wanted more skill points, you'd raise your INT.

So I don't see how making a game in a way that I see as inherently better by adding in some implementation of the Attributes wouldn't still be able to appeal to just as large of an audience. (If not larger.)

See this is the thing that really bothers me. Is Bethesda saying (without actually having to say it) that their target audience is too daft to understand the perfectly useable and easy to understand SPECIAL system Cain and Co. came up with and succesfully implemented much to the joy of PC gamers everywhere? Why else would they basically come out and say "We didn't want people incapable of complex role-playing to not be able to enjoy our game", eh?



Certainly agree with ya there.

It's a small part of the community who thinks it's broken. The genius of the GECK is that folks can better configure the game to their individual liking. So do that with the understanding that other people are probably looking for other things in their game.

I'd like to see SPECIAL have more impact on the way the storyline develops, but I'm not that adverse to ensuring that players can't totally gimp themselves by choosing poorly while designing their characters. That is, I think the FO3 system could be better, but I see no need to clone FO1.

It's a small part of the "community" who actually even understands what SPECIAL was all about, period. But just about everybody from the old camp who DOES know what it was feels exactly the same about it: it's broken and useless, one more ribbon on an empty box.

Let's see some numbers to support your claims. I played Fo1 and Fo2 when they came out. I do not support the sort of fanaticism I have seen in the last couple of years. Without moving FO3 to a more inclusive audience, there probably wouldn't have been an FO3. I know that many of these "community" people would be fine with that, but I, and many other people are glad for FO3, warts and all. Some of what you want is better than nothing of what you want, every time, IMO.

So dramatic hyperbole doesn't support your claims, nor do sweeping statements. You are on the wrong website for those sorts of tactics to have any traction.

Ok then, a poll. I'll concede after a few weeks of numbers.

I don't think there's any need to completely copy FO1, either (though if you want to really nit-pick, I don't see any reason they need to be pretending that's what they're doing, either.)

But in a well-designed and balanced system, there are no "gimped" characters. In the effects of all attributes are perfectly balanced, then one Attribute is every bit as useful as another. 10 points in PER should be every bit as useful as 10 points in INT. In an ideal system, every character is exactly equal because they all have 40 points to distribute. Having a 1 in any attribute would make the game challenging in some ways, surely, but would also be countered by bonuses gained by being higher in other skills.

Frankly, I never made a character in Fallout 1 or 2 that wasn't capable of making it all the way through the game. And I made some interesting ones.

If that's such a concern, though, you could always limit the minimum and maximum values for starting Attributes, as well.

The point is, though, if it's a good system, there's no wrong way to choose your starting values, it only disperses your strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

This summed the core problem witb f3. Am I all wrong here asking that aren't the bad choises part of roleplaying? Why can't we accept that sometimes we make wrong choises. I for one enjoy playing flawed characters because it gives them the edge and flavour. Flaws make us what we are. Perfect characters, perfect choises are boring as hell. This game rewards player with too many skillpoints -> thus everybody ends up getting all the skills he or she wanted maxed or atleast pretty close to that. Secondly like said atributes don't have enough effect on my character. Strenght doesn't have any othet purpose than how much dmg i can deal with melee weapons or how much I can carry.

Quest design reflects also this design philosophy. You don't want to make player feel that he made bad choises along the road thus no unfair consequences.

No you're not wrong, and yes - making bad choices, even just the knowledge that you can make a bad choice is what gives (is supposed to give) RPG's an edge in personalization over other games.

Small part ? Don't many people think it's broken with regards to the story ? the ending ? the level cap ? and so on ? The genius of the GECK is a sort of dishonest genius, in that they can put out an LCD product and just let the good sheep mod it so it aims a bit higher. Not exactly what you mean by them cloning Fallout, although given that's regarded as the best one, it would have been something to aspire to. Sad that the game has to coddle people so they can't screw themselves over, but oh well, brave new market.