Upload
Login or register

inkydot

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/14/2012
Stats
Comment Thumbs: 519 total,  653 ,  134
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 20% (2/10)
Level 149 Comments: Faptastic → Level 150 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Total Comments Made:314
FJ Points:521

latest user's comments

#53 - school is cool  [+] (1 reply) 08/20/2015 on So You Want to Be an... +1
User avatar
#70 - sketchyz (08/21/2015) [-]
All right, you're on.
#199 - These are all excellent points. and your summarized version is…  [+] (1 reply) 04/08/2015 on if only 0
User avatar
#204 - gabrielcortez (04/08/2015) [-]
For co-op it could be something as simple as a 2 second delay which informs the other player who didn't initiate it that VATS will be activated. It wouldn't help in the split second VATS decisions but otherwise it could work. The second player would also initiate VATS at that point but doesn't have to target anyone if he/she doesn't want to.
While the slow-mo attack happens for the one who initiated it the other player plays in slow-mo. But to balance this, the one who didn't use VATS would still spend an equatible amount of points as the one who did initiate it.

Kinda like sacrificing the benefit of using VATS for a bit of slow-mo.
Either go along with VATS for an increased crit change and way easier limb targeting for strategical value or skip it for a short slow-mo bonus.

Not perfect, but could work.

On a larger player-scale I have no idea if it could work. Would probably need to be so heavily redesigned that it'd no longer be VATS.
#182 - I feel like there are ways of keeping random people out of you…  [+] (5 replies) 04/08/2015 on if only 0
User avatar
#190 - gabrielcortez (04/08/2015) [-]
TL : DR version:
If the singleplayer experience is unaffected from the co-op I really don't see a problem.
I can't, however, see how it wouldn't be unaffected.

Oh and sorry for the rant. Fallout brings that out in me.
#189 - gabrielcortez has deleted their comment.
User avatar
#187 - gabrielcortez (04/08/2015) [-]
What about the save system then?
I don't play many games but from what I remember, single-player games with co-op features usually rely on one save that uses auto-save whenever you reach a check-point or whenever a certain significant progress has been made.

If this system is still used for co-op games, what happens when your friend, who you trust, still manage to fuck up and ended up making you villified with a faction and the game auto-saves?

I mean, if they can have fixed saves for me who don't want to co-op then I guess I wouldn't care. The co-op fellas can have their co-op as it won't interfere with me. But if the save system 'does' interfere with the way I play the game then it will be extremely detrimental. Sometimes in RPG's with choice and consequence I want to try out stuff to see what will happen. I wouldn't be able to do that as the game might auto-save.

Thing is, a co-op experience needs to be designed from the get go. You can't just throw it into certain games. Like in Point Lookout when you fall through the floor. How'd that work in co-op? Does the 2nd player have to manually jump through the hole? Wouldn't you suffer fall damage? What about when dialogue pauses time (something I really like as I don't want the world around me to be disturbed while I'm paying attention to an NPC), would the game now no longer pause like in Skyrim? What about those times when you enter dialogue and your screen is fixed on what is in front of you and at the end of the dialogue some npc's spawn behind you? As it currently is they wouldn't need to have the NPC's 'enter' from anywhere, they could just spawn behind like *poof!* and they're there and it wouldn't look silly. But with co-op the 2nd player would see them just pop into existence. This means that the NPC's would need to be altered so that they do 'enter' from some side.

What I'm getting at with that last bit is that it adds up. Think about all of the small things that need to be designed differently because of a second player interacting with the gameworld.

Bethesda, in my view, aren't even that good at designing a singleplayer experience, so them having to stretch their resources even thinner to take care of every single variable they didn't have to worry about before when it wasn't co-op could end up being detrimental.

Events might end up being simpler. Locations might be awkwardly designed to suit 2 players to the point where it feels unnatural. Choice and consequence needs a serious overhaul.

And finally, if the second player enters the game what do they enter as? Their own character or a co-op character? I wouldn't really care much for playing as any other character but my own. I mean, why would I bother playing as Lydia or Clover or whoever? Yeah yeah, I get to play with my friend but I don't get to actually 'do' anything. It's not my playthrough, it's my friends and I wouldn't want to fuck things up for him/her. Alternatively, depending on how it is designed, maybe I 'can't' do anything to fuck it up in the first place. Which limits the choices I get to make even further. Basically, all I am is a meatshield in someone elses journey. It's subjective though but I wouldn't find that enjoyable. Not to be able to build a character or make any real decisions in the gameworld or fearing that making a decision that is detrimental to my friends playthrough would make me feel like a piece of shit really.

It isn't as simple as just copy-pasting co-op into Fallout. Everything needs to be designed to accomodate(?) a co-op experience. That may very well infringe upon the singleplayer experience as well.

If Fallout 4's singleplayer isn't affected by the co-op then I don't really care. But I can't see how co-op could be implemented without tweaking the singleplayer experience and that terrifies me. And quite frankly, after the massive fuckups Bethesda made to Fallout with Fallout 3 if they don't show any signs of progress then Fallout 4 will be the last one I play.
#199 - inkydot (04/08/2015) [-]
These are all excellent points. and your summarized version is spot on. Granted certain things aren't changed ( I really don't see how they'll get around VATS ) I wouldn't mind multiplayer options.
User avatar
#204 - gabrielcortez (04/08/2015) [-]
For co-op it could be something as simple as a 2 second delay which informs the other player who didn't initiate it that VATS will be activated. It wouldn't help in the split second VATS decisions but otherwise it could work. The second player would also initiate VATS at that point but doesn't have to target anyone if he/she doesn't want to.
While the slow-mo attack happens for the one who initiated it the other player plays in slow-mo. But to balance this, the one who didn't use VATS would still spend an equatible amount of points as the one who did initiate it.

Kinda like sacrificing the benefit of using VATS for a bit of slow-mo.
Either go along with VATS for an increased crit change and way easier limb targeting for strategical value or skip it for a short slow-mo bonus.

Not perfect, but could work.

On a larger player-scale I have no idea if it could work. Would probably need to be so heavily redesigned that it'd no longer be VATS.
#1 - how punny 03/13/2015 on hue +1