Anon Dislikes Fallout 3
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
26 comments displayed.
#2
-
juter (12/21/2015) [-] In Bethesda's defense, the old Fallout games didn't exactly allow for any sort of build to thrive. There were specific stats and skills that dominated the wasteland and ones that got you ****** in the ass halfway through forcing you to restart.
#12 to #6
-
maninaboat (12/22/2015) [-]
That's not really a counterargument, though.
I can beat most games made after saves came about by savescumming. And with emulators I can even Savescum my way through Mario or Sonic games.
This strikes me as being nearly the same argument as "The Mods Make it Good." Being able to savescum isn't likely a conscious decision of game design so it can't really be hailed as a good thing.
I put it in the same pile of ******** praise as "it's boring at first but gets really good after Hour 3!" That's not a feature.
Neither is being able to savescum. That's strategy outside of the game. It's basically cheating, without too much of a logical stretch.
I can beat most games made after saves came about by savescumming. And with emulators I can even Savescum my way through Mario or Sonic games.
This strikes me as being nearly the same argument as "The Mods Make it Good." Being able to savescum isn't likely a conscious decision of game design so it can't really be hailed as a good thing.
I put it in the same pile of ******** praise as "it's boring at first but gets really good after Hour 3!" That's not a feature.
Neither is being able to savescum. That's strategy outside of the game. It's basically cheating, without too much of a logical stretch.
#13 to #12
-
beroty [OP]ONLINE (12/22/2015) [-] >using a ingame function is cheating
i just proved him wrong saying that you are able to beat with any build, never said you had to follow a right path
there's absolutely nothing wrong with savescumming in fallout 2/1 since the game has a limited time period and you must find the most efficient way to do something and spend less time on it.
i just proved him wrong saying that you are able to beat with any build, never said you had to follow a right path
there's absolutely nothing wrong with savescumming in fallout 2/1 since the game has a limited time period and you must find the most efficient way to do something and spend less time on it.
#15 to #13
-
maninaboat (12/22/2015) [-] >Abusing a game function is not cheating.
Lolwut.
Then by definition of "if it is an ingame system it isn't cheating," using cheat codes and console cmands is also not cheating. I mean, they were programmed into the game, so it's an in-game system and therefore not cheating.
Using paintbrushes to built floating ladders in Oblivion was also just fine since it was an in-game system.
Unless it was designed in PURPOSEFULLY as a way to beat the game, then it isn't actually a counterargument to his.
His argument is that playing the game normally is simply not viable with some builds.
"Yes but you can abuse saves to win anyways!"
Do you see how that's not an effective counterargument? That's not within the gameplay. When you save, you are specifically NOT playing but freezing the game in a certain spot. It's typically in the same menu as Settings and Exiting the Game. That's not part of the gameplay. It's a convenience given so you don't have to play it all at once. Just like the Settings let you adjust the audio volume for convenience or pleasure. The Audio setting is not gameplay any more than the Save button is.
Get outta here with that **** .
Lolwut.
Then by definition of "if it is an ingame system it isn't cheating," using cheat codes and console cmands is also not cheating. I mean, they were programmed into the game, so it's an in-game system and therefore not cheating.
Using paintbrushes to built floating ladders in Oblivion was also just fine since it was an in-game system.
Unless it was designed in PURPOSEFULLY as a way to beat the game, then it isn't actually a counterargument to his.
His argument is that playing the game normally is simply not viable with some builds.
"Yes but you can abuse saves to win anyways!"
Do you see how that's not an effective counterargument? That's not within the gameplay. When you save, you are specifically NOT playing but freezing the game in a certain spot. It's typically in the same menu as Settings and Exiting the Game. That's not part of the gameplay. It's a convenience given so you don't have to play it all at once. Just like the Settings let you adjust the audio volume for convenience or pleasure. The Audio setting is not gameplay any more than the Save button is.
Get outta here with that **** .
#17 to #16
-
maninaboat (12/22/2015) [-]
If you're backing up a save file to prevent data loss, you're being pragmatic.
If you're doing it to get an edge in a game, you're cheating. (This time by manipulating game files. Which should be obvious cheating.)
For Rerolling, I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with Fallout 1 and 2 to know if that is an in-game mechanic or not. (Of course, the particulars of the game are not important for my point.) But I can go into a game with a similar in-game mechanic:
Borderlands and the Respec options.
If it is something like that, where you can Respec skill points or shift them around and it is BUILT INTO GAMEPLAY rather than requiring manipulation of game files outside of gameplay, then it isn't cheating. It's gameplay. (Ie, there is a machine you walk up to in the game that brings up the requisite menu.)
If it means going into your save file and manipulating numbers, then that is obviously cheating.
If it's a thing you can do during character creation, then no.
If it happens outside of the Pause menu, then it's Gameplay. If the Game is paused, Gameplay has ceased and now technical things are happening.
Anything that uses things external to the gameplay to make the play easier (with the exception of accessibility options, sensitivity settings or preferred controller since those are not universal) is going to be cheating 99% of the time.
Saving isn't gameplay. It's an offshoot of the Options menu. If adjusting an FOV slider is gameplay, then sure. Saving is gameplay. If not, then neither is saving.
Let me put it in a way you may understand:
You're playing chess. You make a move? Your opponent moves. You put them in Checkmate.
Your opponent says "No, wait, I don't do that. You don't win." And resets to before their last move and tries again.
Did they cheat? Duh. Obviously.
This is what you're doing in gameplay terms.
If random outcomes are so bad that they can randomly ruin your entire playthrough, then the game has ****** design. (Unless the reward is literally money, like with gambling. But most of those games also have ****** design.) If you're too much of a wuss to deal with setbacks:
Git Gud.
If you're doing it to get an edge in a game, you're cheating. (This time by manipulating game files. Which should be obvious cheating.)
For Rerolling, I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with Fallout 1 and 2 to know if that is an in-game mechanic or not. (Of course, the particulars of the game are not important for my point.) But I can go into a game with a similar in-game mechanic:
Borderlands and the Respec options.
If it is something like that, where you can Respec skill points or shift them around and it is BUILT INTO GAMEPLAY rather than requiring manipulation of game files outside of gameplay, then it isn't cheating. It's gameplay. (Ie, there is a machine you walk up to in the game that brings up the requisite menu.)
If it means going into your save file and manipulating numbers, then that is obviously cheating.
If it's a thing you can do during character creation, then no.
If it happens outside of the Pause menu, then it's Gameplay. If the Game is paused, Gameplay has ceased and now technical things are happening.
Anything that uses things external to the gameplay to make the play easier (with the exception of accessibility options, sensitivity settings or preferred controller since those are not universal) is going to be cheating 99% of the time.
Saving isn't gameplay. It's an offshoot of the Options menu. If adjusting an FOV slider is gameplay, then sure. Saving is gameplay. If not, then neither is saving.
Let me put it in a way you may understand:
You're playing chess. You make a move? Your opponent moves. You put them in Checkmate.
Your opponent says "No, wait, I don't do that. You don't win." And resets to before their last move and tries again.
Did they cheat? Duh. Obviously.
This is what you're doing in gameplay terms.
If random outcomes are so bad that they can randomly ruin your entire playthrough, then the game has ****** design. (Unless the reward is literally money, like with gambling. But most of those games also have ****** design.) If you're too much of a wuss to deal with setbacks:
Git Gud.
#18 to #17
-
beroty [OP]ONLINE (12/22/2015) [-] but here's where you are wrong
when i lose to someone on chess i know i lost for my own lack of skills
but on fallout 2/1 there are a lot of RNG encounters that will wipe you out in the early game [spoiler] like deathclaws or getting spotted by the enclave [spoiler], and the only way to not find majority of them is to pray to RNGesus
also, there are lots of situations that not even savescumming will save you, so you must know your limits
it's also used because a string of badluck will **** your **** up, like getting a critical miss and getting shoot in the eye
when i lose to someone on chess i know i lost for my own lack of skills
but on fallout 2/1 there are a lot of RNG encounters that will wipe you out in the early game [spoiler] like deathclaws or getting spotted by the enclave [spoiler], and the only way to not find majority of them is to pray to RNGesus
also, there are lots of situations that not even savescumming will save you, so you must know your limits
it's also used because a string of badluck will **** your **** up, like getting a critical miss and getting shoot in the eye
#19 to #18
-
maninaboat (12/23/2015) [-]
Then that's just an additional failing of game design that must be solved out-of-gameplay, not a feature that levels the playing field.
Savescumming is still cheating.
Having it be NECESSARY doesn't make it not cheating.
It makes the game ****** .
To propose an alternative,
You're playing Roulette and someone demands a respin because they lost. Still not gonna fly in the Casino. Loss was based on random numbers (more or less) but it still stands.
That you NEED to cheat to win is actually a HUGE blow against Fallout 1 and 2. I don't NEED to cheat to win at the later games, no matter the randomly generated BS that happens.
Savescumming is still cheating.
Having it be NECESSARY doesn't make it not cheating.
It makes the game ****** .
To propose an alternative,
You're playing Roulette and someone demands a respin because they lost. Still not gonna fly in the Casino. Loss was based on random numbers (more or less) but it still stands.
That you NEED to cheat to win is actually a HUGE blow against Fallout 1 and 2. I don't NEED to cheat to win at the later games, no matter the randomly generated BS that happens.
#21 to #19
-
beroty [OP]ONLINE (12/23/2015) [-] >using a function that is literally in the game and it's not secret neither needs any special input is cheating
stop being a ******* , i'll use anything the game gives me to win and there's nothing you can do about it, you might as well call anybody that pickpockets from some NPC's to give himself an advantage is also a cheater because he's not following the same road has you
never said you needed to cheat to win, i just said that savescumming might be necessary because even with something at 99% chance to work it not always work, when that 1% fail chance ticks you'll know
also the game literally savescum for you
>save before pickpocketing an npc
>fail
>whole town kills you
>game puts you into the starting menu and the last save was you trying to pickpocket someone
>do it again
>fail
>rise and repeat till you get it
stop being a ******* , i'll use anything the game gives me to win and there's nothing you can do about it, you might as well call anybody that pickpockets from some NPC's to give himself an advantage is also a cheater because he's not following the same road has you
never said you needed to cheat to win, i just said that savescumming might be necessary because even with something at 99% chance to work it not always work, when that 1% fail chance ticks you'll know
also the game literally savescum for you
>save before pickpocketing an npc
>fail
>whole town kills you
>game puts you into the starting menu and the last save was you trying to pickpocket someone
>do it again
>fail
>rise and repeat till you get it
#22 to #21
-
maninaboat (12/23/2015) [-] But pickpocketing is gameplay.
Saving is not. Not all things programmed into a game are a part of "Gameplay." (Gameplay being, amazingly, the part where you are controlling the action of the game.)
Saving has nothing to do with gameplay. Saving your essay in microsoft word, while certainly an excellent idea, is entirely foreign to the act of writing the essay.
In similar manner, saving your Fallout game has nothing to do with in-game actions taken by (ostensibly) the character. It's a thing YOU do. Regular non-game you. It's outside if gameplay.
You can feel free to savescum if you really really need to (which you seem to suddenly think is not ncessary to win, but everyone who plays does and should do it, but that doesn't make it necessary.) Just like anyone can use cheat codes.
BUT.
It STILL isn't a counterargument to the point made waaaaay back at the start, which is the point of this whole thing.
The point being: Some builds objectively are WAAAAY better and most of the others are objectively awful.
Savescumming doesn't fix that in any particular way. Even if we wave the "pretend" wand and say that saving your game is gameplay, savescumming in no way improves those builds. It just ameliorates to some small degree their uselessness.
But in the real world, Non-gameplay game options or Metagame are not exactly valid counterarguments to in-gameplay failings.
"Wow. This game is really dark."
"If you slide the brightness to maxium you can see better."
"I shouldn't have to do that."
Same answer here.
"Wow. A lot of builds are objectively ****** ."
"If you savescum, that fixes the problem."
"I shouldn't have to do that. And it doesn't actually improve the build, it just lets me slog through despite the ****** build."
Not a counterargument to the issue within Gameplay.
(And ESPECIALLY not since the apparent point of the original series was "every build is viable." if the ONLY way to make them viable is outside of gameplay...then they failed on that design point.)
Saving is not. Not all things programmed into a game are a part of "Gameplay." (Gameplay being, amazingly, the part where you are controlling the action of the game.)
Saving has nothing to do with gameplay. Saving your essay in microsoft word, while certainly an excellent idea, is entirely foreign to the act of writing the essay.
In similar manner, saving your Fallout game has nothing to do with in-game actions taken by (ostensibly) the character. It's a thing YOU do. Regular non-game you. It's outside if gameplay.
You can feel free to savescum if you really really need to (which you seem to suddenly think is not ncessary to win, but everyone who plays does and should do it, but that doesn't make it necessary.) Just like anyone can use cheat codes.
BUT.
It STILL isn't a counterargument to the point made waaaaay back at the start, which is the point of this whole thing.
The point being: Some builds objectively are WAAAAY better and most of the others are objectively awful.
Savescumming doesn't fix that in any particular way. Even if we wave the "pretend" wand and say that saving your game is gameplay, savescumming in no way improves those builds. It just ameliorates to some small degree their uselessness.
But in the real world, Non-gameplay game options or Metagame are not exactly valid counterarguments to in-gameplay failings.
"Wow. This game is really dark."
"If you slide the brightness to maxium you can see better."
"I shouldn't have to do that."
Same answer here.
"Wow. A lot of builds are objectively ****** ."
"If you savescum, that fixes the problem."
"I shouldn't have to do that. And it doesn't actually improve the build, it just lets me slog through despite the ****** build."
Not a counterargument to the issue within Gameplay.
(And ESPECIALLY not since the apparent point of the original series was "every build is viable." if the ONLY way to make them viable is outside of gameplay...then they failed on that design point.)
#24 to #23
-
maninaboat (12/23/2015) [-]
"This easter egg, tongue-in-cheek joke indicates that saving is gameplay!"
Uhuh. Ok. Good source, bro.
Uhuh. Ok. Good source, bro.
#26 to #25
-
maninaboat (12/23/2015) [-]
You have no points. You're repeating the same two over and over without any more solid backing than an easter egg.
Saving is not part of the gameplay.
Fundamentals of Roleplaying Game Design by Ernest Adams is a good book for individuals wanting to get briefed on what makes an RPG an RPG.
The word "save" is mentioned ONCE in the entire book. In reference to "Only YOU can save the world!"
In fact, I'm fairly certain that none of the game design books I've ever read have mentioned Save mechanics as anything aside from metagame inclusions that one should be careful about because it effects user-end experience and/or can be exploited. (That last one tho)
But not as a gameplay feature.
The fact that some games include save systems that are designed to mitigate or prevent Savescumming is not indicative of the practice being 100% kosher. It seems to be a problem.
That your fate is based almost entirely on random chance with MASSIVE negative consequences is poor game design. If pickpocketing one person and failing leads to being murdered by an entire town, your risk/reward system is **** and needs fixing.
If your game features a Death Spiral (getting damaged in certain ways makes it so much easier to die that you may as well quit) then it's ****** design.
The save system CAN BE USED to mitigate the negative effects of said ****** design.
But it isn't gameplay.
And it doesn't redeem the ****** design.
As far as it being cheating goes, the better word may be Exploiting. Since cheating implies someone else loses out due to your behavior, which isn't true in this case. So I'll concede the specific word "cheating" as being not totally accurate. But it is DEFINITELY exploiting.
And the existence of savescumming as a possibility does not, and never will, make up for ****** gameplay design. It alleviates its symptoms, but is not a cure.
Advil will make your open head wound hurt less. Doesn't fix it, though.
Of course, Fallout 1 and 2 are from Ye Olden Days when pretty much all games suffered from ****** design in one way or another. They weren't perfect. (For instance it's insanely easy to beat Fallout 1 by just walking away from danger. Seriously. It's not even a glitch. It's just a consequence of the janky combat system.)
My argument has been, from the start:
The existence of savescumming is NOT a valid counterargument to gameplay problems.
Saving isn't gameplay.
It is part of the GAME, but not part of GAMEPLAY.
The GAME is any part of the program. The title menu is a part of the Game.
GAMEPLAY refers to mechanics and action occuring within the realm of playing field of the game. The title menu is not part of gameplay.
Saving is part of the GAME
It is not part of GAMEPLAY.
Gameplay issues are NOT redeemed by Game systems that are not also a part of Gameplay. They can alleviate them, but they cannot outright redeem them.
Just like a game that is too dark is not redeemed by having a brightness slider. If the only way to see is to crank the brightness to Maximum, IT'S TOO DARK. It has to be solved outside of gameplay. If it's really dark unless you use the in-game flashlight, then the darkness problem is solved within gameplay and becomes a non-issue.
That's it. That is my entire argument. Anything else you're arguing about has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Saving is not part of the gameplay.
Fundamentals of Roleplaying Game Design by Ernest Adams is a good book for individuals wanting to get briefed on what makes an RPG an RPG.
The word "save" is mentioned ONCE in the entire book. In reference to "Only YOU can save the world!"
In fact, I'm fairly certain that none of the game design books I've ever read have mentioned Save mechanics as anything aside from metagame inclusions that one should be careful about because it effects user-end experience and/or can be exploited. (That last one tho)
But not as a gameplay feature.
The fact that some games include save systems that are designed to mitigate or prevent Savescumming is not indicative of the practice being 100% kosher. It seems to be a problem.
That your fate is based almost entirely on random chance with MASSIVE negative consequences is poor game design. If pickpocketing one person and failing leads to being murdered by an entire town, your risk/reward system is **** and needs fixing.
If your game features a Death Spiral (getting damaged in certain ways makes it so much easier to die that you may as well quit) then it's ****** design.
The save system CAN BE USED to mitigate the negative effects of said ****** design.
But it isn't gameplay.
And it doesn't redeem the ****** design.
As far as it being cheating goes, the better word may be Exploiting. Since cheating implies someone else loses out due to your behavior, which isn't true in this case. So I'll concede the specific word "cheating" as being not totally accurate. But it is DEFINITELY exploiting.
And the existence of savescumming as a possibility does not, and never will, make up for ****** gameplay design. It alleviates its symptoms, but is not a cure.
Advil will make your open head wound hurt less. Doesn't fix it, though.
Of course, Fallout 1 and 2 are from Ye Olden Days when pretty much all games suffered from ****** design in one way or another. They weren't perfect. (For instance it's insanely easy to beat Fallout 1 by just walking away from danger. Seriously. It's not even a glitch. It's just a consequence of the janky combat system.)
My argument has been, from the start:
The existence of savescumming is NOT a valid counterargument to gameplay problems.
Saving isn't gameplay.
It is part of the GAME, but not part of GAMEPLAY.
The GAME is any part of the program. The title menu is a part of the Game.
GAMEPLAY refers to mechanics and action occuring within the realm of playing field of the game. The title menu is not part of gameplay.
Saving is part of the GAME
It is not part of GAMEPLAY.
Gameplay issues are NOT redeemed by Game systems that are not also a part of Gameplay. They can alleviate them, but they cannot outright redeem them.
Just like a game that is too dark is not redeemed by having a brightness slider. If the only way to see is to crank the brightness to Maximum, IT'S TOO DARK. It has to be solved outside of gameplay. If it's really dark unless you use the in-game flashlight, then the darkness problem is solved within gameplay and becomes a non-issue.
That's it. That is my entire argument. Anything else you're arguing about has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
#1
-
thepizzadevourer ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] This is precisely why I've never been able to get into any Bethesda game. They're entertaining, sure, but nothing beyond that. There's zero immersion, everything feels like it exists to just wait for you to come along. I get that the PC has to feel important, otherwise why would you play, but by making their PC's too important, everything just feels so . . . lame. Like, I don't even feel any pressure to complete the main storyline, because in the back of my mind I know "Hey, I'm too important, it's not like anything's going to happen without me."
#5 to #1
-
umbrage (12/21/2015) [-] Same here. A lot of games get **** on for being too linear or 'on rails', but if the alternative is "hey you can do whatever you want! no real consequences to your actions! you're the most important person in the world!" I'd much rather have a linear game with a good story. I play games to overcome obstacles, to test my limits, not to find there are no limits.
Pic related. It's how I feel when playing a Bethesda RPG: able to do everything but not finding enjoyment in anything, reacting blandly to plot events that I don't care about, and mindlessly killing every overhyped villain that comes my way. I don't hate Bethesda nearly as much as some people, and I'd be lying if I said I never enjoyed their games, but they're massively overrated and I doubt they can even be properly called RPGs.
Pic related. It's how I feel when playing a Bethesda RPG: able to do everything but not finding enjoyment in anything, reacting blandly to plot events that I don't care about, and mindlessly killing every overhyped villain that comes my way. I don't hate Bethesda nearly as much as some people, and I'd be lying if I said I never enjoyed their games, but they're massively overrated and I doubt they can even be properly called RPGs.
#14 to #5
-
maninaboat (12/22/2015) [-]
I have honestly never thought of Bethesda games as RPGs. I've thought of them as hybrids, always.
RPGs and FPSs are about as divorced from one another as two game types could be. It's about as weird a concept as a Puzzle-based Racing Game. (Still possible, but unlikely to be ULTRA GREAT FUN for lovers of both sorts of games.)
Another problem is the limitations of writing for videogames. In order to have every solution to every problem be viable means that the writers must first know every single possible solution a player may find, then write logical profression and dialogue for all of those outcomes. And THEN the programmer must program the game so that all of those solutions create a victory condition without bugging up too hard to work properly or just giving the quest as an automatic victory or something similarly stupid.
THEN the voice actors have to be called in and record every single line of dialogue for each of these possible solutions.
And then all of this needs to be combined with art and character design. And if these solutions have impact on the main quest line? Oh **** . Your workload just got geometrically larger.
Each of these missions is starting to add up to the hundreds of man hours, and accounting for quests affecting other quests makes it even more nuts.
(And all this **** takes up a LOT of memory)
But the demand is for bigger worlds, all of them endlessly rich and full of quests to do, or else the game is apparently **** .
And also change is bad but innovation is needed and making it more accessible to more players is bad and pandering to casuals and how dare they try tk recuperate the massive costs of development by appealing to a wider market?! THE SCOUNDRELS! THE HEARTLESS MONEYGUZZLING MACHINES!
When you look at what we demand from AAA titles and see what the actual requirements for those are, it becomes a very different playing field.
Why does it usually come down to choices at the end? Because otherwise the writers go crazy and **** takes forever to write.
Here's just a brief challenge to explain why this **** is hard.
Make a folder called "Combo Lock."
Inside, make three folders numbered 1, 2, and 3.
In each of those folders, make three more folders numbered 1, 2, 3.
Continue this so that you can effectively enter any 5 digit combination.
No seriously. Do it. It's a fun project for keeping things hidden from computer-unlearned morons.
Did you do it? Welcome back. That was pretty tedious, yeah?
Ok, now imagine this but with 0 through 5. And the code should be 20 digits.
I get carpel tunnel just thinking about it.
That's basically how these branching quests work, but also involving a ******** of player prediction and writing.
TL;DR: Making sandbox games is unholy magnitudes of scale more difficult than making linear ones.
RPGs and FPSs are about as divorced from one another as two game types could be. It's about as weird a concept as a Puzzle-based Racing Game. (Still possible, but unlikely to be ULTRA GREAT FUN for lovers of both sorts of games.)
Another problem is the limitations of writing for videogames. In order to have every solution to every problem be viable means that the writers must first know every single possible solution a player may find, then write logical profression and dialogue for all of those outcomes. And THEN the programmer must program the game so that all of those solutions create a victory condition without bugging up too hard to work properly or just giving the quest as an automatic victory or something similarly stupid.
THEN the voice actors have to be called in and record every single line of dialogue for each of these possible solutions.
And then all of this needs to be combined with art and character design. And if these solutions have impact on the main quest line? Oh **** . Your workload just got geometrically larger.
Each of these missions is starting to add up to the hundreds of man hours, and accounting for quests affecting other quests makes it even more nuts.
(And all this **** takes up a LOT of memory)
But the demand is for bigger worlds, all of them endlessly rich and full of quests to do, or else the game is apparently **** .
And also change is bad but innovation is needed and making it more accessible to more players is bad and pandering to casuals and how dare they try tk recuperate the massive costs of development by appealing to a wider market?! THE SCOUNDRELS! THE HEARTLESS MONEYGUZZLING MACHINES!
When you look at what we demand from AAA titles and see what the actual requirements for those are, it becomes a very different playing field.
Why does it usually come down to choices at the end? Because otherwise the writers go crazy and **** takes forever to write.
Here's just a brief challenge to explain why this **** is hard.
Make a folder called "Combo Lock."
Inside, make three folders numbered 1, 2, and 3.
In each of those folders, make three more folders numbered 1, 2, 3.
Continue this so that you can effectively enter any 5 digit combination.
No seriously. Do it. It's a fun project for keeping things hidden from computer-unlearned morons.
Did you do it? Welcome back. That was pretty tedious, yeah?
Ok, now imagine this but with 0 through 5. And the code should be 20 digits.
I get carpel tunnel just thinking about it.
That's basically how these branching quests work, but also involving a ******** of player prediction and writing.
TL;DR: Making sandbox games is unholy magnitudes of scale more difficult than making linear ones.
#4
-
lean ONLINE (12/21/2015) [-] I sorta get what he is saying, but at the same time I wouldn't have ever bothered playing FO3, NV, or 4 if it had turn based fighting and was laid out as a more digitized PNP game. That **** ******* sucked all the way back to final fantasy 7.
They took a great premise for a game and made it appealing to most gamers. The handful of /v/ tards who disliked the inclusion of FPS elements and PC oriented gameplay would be bitching regardless. IMO the game sucks balls without them
They took a great premise for a game and made it appealing to most gamers. The handful of /v/ tards who disliked the inclusion of FPS elements and PC oriented gameplay would be bitching regardless. IMO the game sucks balls without them
#10 to #9
-
lean ONLINE (12/22/2015) [-] A game doesn't have to be an RPG to be good either. Fallout is good because it combines elements from different types of games. It's middle of the road. Common ground between different genres. It wouldn't really stack up on one specific aspect against other games of that genre, but the other aspects are what makes it enjoyable. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
#20 to #10
-
dierdred (12/23/2015) [-] I made a mistake. I got pissy over someones opinion. Your opinion is yours, and when it comes to regards about the original fallouts, I dont think they suck, them being a TBRPG isa charming feature to them, and they were just fine without the FPS aspect, but the FPS aspect of the newer ones made the lore easier to get into.
#8
-
grandautisimo (12/21/2015) [-]
yup, not many games out there that tackle the same theme fallout does, not yet anyway, once bethesda's monopoly bubble bursts they will go under
