How good are you at H2H? How much strength and endurance do you have? If your character is a limp-wristed intellectual then you should already know that trading punches with the leader of a raider group is going to end in tears. Much like in real life.
The level 3 perk Awareness will tell you how much hitpoints a target has and what weapon they have, but you can't know what stats or skills someone has.
The problem is that none of that will work if my character doesn't have the right stats and there isn't even a way to find out how good my character needs to be to even have the slimmest chance of success for any of that.
Your character is not supposed to be able to do everything (at least not well). You can create balanced characters that can do most things, but there will always be something you won't be able to do or aren't good at.
So after getting killed trying the first, I got killed trying the second and I think the third one got me killed too, so I bought her ought which seems to be the only think that actually worked with my character, didn't feel very intelligent doing that, was just try&error finding something that actually works.
I never had trouble clearing out all the raiders. If you're having problems with that you can ask Ian in Shady Sands to join you.
And the last one sounds awfully random, how the hell I am supposed to find that out?
You're not. There are lots of things you'll never see or know about if you don't have the right build.
It works the same way with attacking people, with buying stuff and even with dialog options and when a dice roll decides if you will meet instant death or have a successful quest that is very annoying.
There is of course a random element to combat, but it's based on stats, skills, equipment and tactics, not random chance. Bartering and speech are based on stats and skills, not chance.
Except of course that the game gives you no friggen hint as to how dangerous something is, so its down to just trying the options and dieing a lot. I don't even mind the dieing part, since that is not much different in many other games either (XCom:UFO, Gothic, etc.), but in those I always felt like I died because I was careless, in Fallout I always felt I died because I didn't stand a chance in the first place.
Well, I am currently a few hours into Fallout1 and I am still waiting for that one to reward intelligent actions. So far each and every quest (all three of them or so, quest seem to be incredible sparse in that game) has got me spawned right in front of the enemy with exactly zero choice to an intelligent approach, since the shooting starts instantly.
Not sure what this is about. One of the earliest quests you get is rescuing Tandi from the raiders, and it has the following solutions (taken from here):
* Kill them all and break her out * Fight Garl in unarmed combat for her * Buy her from Garl * Intimidate Garl for her release * Quietly kill the two guards in back and pick the lock on Tandi's cell. * This one doesn't work 100% of the time, but if you enter the Raiders area wearing a Leather Jacket, have 10 ST and 10 EN and are male, the raiders will think you are Garl's father who Garl apparently killed to take control of the Khans. You can try and bluff Garl with this ruse and demand Tandi's release.
Half the people and creatures I am supposed to fight are not even reachable via the worldmap, instead they exist in magical places that you can only reach when an NPC guides you there (aka. instantly teleports you there and when you exist you get teleported back).
This isn't the norm.
Reading through a few FAQs also left me rather puzzles, since most of their "tips" are based on pure try&error and abuse of the save system (save before you steal and if it doesn't work, load and try again..).
You don't have to steal things, it's just one option. Obviously getting caught has to have some consequences, so reloading becomes an issue. However, the higher your steal skill is the more likely you are to succeed, and there are also perks that will make it easier to steal. Approaching your target from the side or the rear increases your odds, and the size of the object you're trying to steal is also a factor.
And given how many times I died just because I tried to talk to the wrong person or asked a wrong question makes it clear that a save before pretty much every action is required for survival.
So far I am not exactly impressed by Fallout1 and quite close to ditching it, since the gameplay just doesn't make a hole lot of sense and the time limit and constant threat of death even on the tiniest misstep of course makes exploration a pain.
This is what happens when a game isn't dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. You have to be careful and think about what you're doing.
So you admit that no genres have disappeared, and that "pretty much" in this case were in fact weasel words.
I've never admitted such things, and no weasel words have been used. You're making shit up.
You said you didn't want games to be "dumbed down." I don't know what that means, so I assumed you meant difficulty. If you don't mean difficulty, what exactly did you mean?
I have a feeling you won't understand.
If you understand that your tastes don't represent a lot of people, then it should come as no surprise that the exact games you want to see made aren't being made, should it? Duh.
Again, I do not represent anyone. I have never claimed to represent anyone. You brought up representation. Not me.
No, you didn't. I used this thing, what's it called, oh yeah, an "example." You should look that up, it's an interesting concept, very useful!
You said it as if I had specifically mentioned Halo 2.
Look, face it: you were wrong about adventure games not existing. You were wrong about genres dying out.
Again, you are incapable of perceiving shades of grey. To you it's either 1 or 0 with nothing in between.
You're cherry-picking some meaning of the phrase "dumbed down" that's purposefully selected to be the opposite meaning I assumed.
And you keep making shit up.
You're being purposefully dense about the Halo 2 example.
Uh huh.
Do you have a single shred of intellectual honesty?
I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm dealing with someone who's posting from a mental asylum.
Ok, so if I log on to Steam, and I purchase and download "Sam and Max" which is a recently-released adventure game done *exactly in LucasArts style* (and as a sequel to a LucasArts adventure game), you're saying that it doesn't exist?
You are apparently incapable of perceiving anything in shades of grey.
You said genres have died out. Name one.
Saying something like "genres have died out" is the equivalent to a geezer saying, "all kids do today is steal and swear!" It's just a nostalgia-induced generalization that, frankly, is complete and utter bullshit.
If genres have actually died out, you'd be able to name one. So name one.
The problem isn't that I can't name genres, the problem is that your brain will only accept ones and zeros.
Yes, pretty much.
If you want games to be difficult, turn up the difficulty slider.
Uh... er... where did I mention difficulty?
Saying that the average person should be deprived of the games they enjoy so that only people like you can enjoy games, that's being an elitist asshole.
And now I'm on a crusade to... deprive people of games?
Here's a news flash: you don't represent many people.
I don't remember claiming to represent anyone.
But to say Halo 2 shouldn't exist because it's "dumbed down?" You couldn't be more wrong.
Did I, in fact, say that? I don't think I ever mentioned Halo 2.
That's fine, if you say that. My annoyance is with people who literally say that the adventure genre "no longer exist", which bothers me because it makes it obvious they're not even bothering to look for adventure games. You see "adventure games no longer exist" all the time on this board.
For all intents and purposes it does not exist.
Like what? What genres have died out? (Or are you using the "pretty much" weasel-words to indicate that NO genres have, in fact, died out?)
They're not weasel words. What are you talking about?
Oh yeah. God damn that general public! Gaming should be reserved for elitist assholes!
What an astounding leap of logic. Because I don't want gaming to be dumbed down and turned into casual entertainment, I'm an elitist asshole? Wow.
Well actually HL2 forces you to watch cutscenes too, and you certainly can't skip them. When people are talking you have to stand there and listen. HL2's method of storytelling doesn't work in most cases because it's very limited and difficult to do.
Do you genuinely know that none of them are "LucasArts quality"? Or are you just putting LucasArts on a pedestal due to your nostalgia? (Back to the theme here.)
So in reality all their games sucked ass but people just remember differently because of nostalgia? Uh, I don't think so.
Honestly, though, I can't speak for the quality of those games. The last adventure I played was Syberia, which was excellent. Before that, I played The Longest Journey, which was also excellent. I would personally say both of those games were better than "LucasArts quality."
Syberia: 2002. Longest Journey: 1999.
That's called "growing up." The same thing happened to the movie industry, the recorded music industry, etc. But the great thing is that there's always independents around to keep the balance interesting.
Independent games can rarely compete with mainstream releases because the developers just don't have the necessary budget to do so. With films and music it's a completely different situation.
Adventure gaming has become a small niche market of mostly low or average quality releases. Not exactly like it was back in the days of Sierra, Lucasarts and Infocom.
I think if you get past the nostalgia, you'll realize that the video games industry is healthier now than ever before, with a wider range of great products than ever before.
Considering that several genres have pretty much died out, I'm not sure that's the case. Casual gamers have also become much too prominent, and have dumbed down games and gaming culture.
What's stopping Mr. 120 Hours from using the same potion? Anyway, a game should not even try to take into account how much time some players have to play and how little time others have.
TF2 is all the rage because it appeals to lazy casual gamers who start crying if they play something like Quake. Believe me, I've talked to a lot of TF2 players and this kind of attitude is damn near universal among them.
I played for a few minutes without anything happening.
I have no idea what "statement" Passage is supposed to make, and it isn't really even much of a game considering it's not supposed to be fun. The value of a game is pretty much measured by how much fun it is.
Passage is shit, though. I played for several minutes, just wandering around, and then quit because nothing was happening and I had no idea what I was supposed to do. It was like playing Pacman without the ghosts, pills and fruits.
By your own logic film and literature cannot be art because there exist books and films that are utter dogshit. There also exist shitty statues, bad photographs and lousy music.
I'm sure completely arbitrary restrictions and rules are really going to help push video games to the next level as an art form. Do you think films would have gotten where they are now if someone would have announced that there's a "proper" way to do things, and everyone would have gone along with it?
A story isn't going to magically become less artistic because it involves the player moving around and doing things. There is no valid reason whatsoever why you can't make a traditional adventure game that plays out like an interactive film and not be able to call it art (if it's good enough to be called art). Even if the game would be linear, it would still allow some things that films do not, such as different dialogue options (maybe you want to find out more about some subject, maybe you don't) and the ability to examine and explore the environment. A game also has the benefit of not having to care about length so much. A film is usually two hours long with three being the practical limit. A game can spend a much longer time exploring its subject matter.
If you don't define "intellectual depth", then there's no way to ever argue the point with you. If you do define it, then you must define it specifically to exclude video games, and comic books, and trashy romantic comedy movies. Otherwise you will inevitably find a counterexample if you look hard enough & wait long enough (note also that paintings and literature have a far longer history than video games from which to produce classics).
Slashdot Mirror
So basically what you want is a game where you know everything in advance, where no random variables exist and where it's never possible to fail.
There's nothing wrong with the game, it's your attitude and expectations that are the problem.
How good are you at H2H? How much strength and endurance do you have? If your character is a limp-wristed intellectual then you should already know that trading punches with the leader of a raider group is going to end in tears. Much like in real life.
The level 3 perk Awareness will tell you how much hitpoints a target has and what weapon they have, but you can't know what stats or skills someone has.
Your character is not supposed to be able to do everything (at least not well). You can create balanced characters that can do most things, but there will always be something you won't be able to do or aren't good at.
I never had trouble clearing out all the raiders. If you're having problems with that you can ask Ian in Shady Sands to join you.
You're not. There are lots of things you'll never see or know about if you don't have the right build.
There is of course a random element to combat, but it's based on stats, skills, equipment and tactics, not random chance. Bartering and speech are based on stats and skills, not chance.
I don't remember ever having this problem.
I get resizing offers in my e-mail all the time.
Shit, he's on to us.
Aaargh. Reading CAD is almost enough to cause physical pain.
Why not? Fallout has always been isometric, and the Fallout 3 that was under development by Black Isle was also isometric.
Not sure what this is about. One of the earliest quests you get is rescuing Tandi from the raiders, and it has the following solutions (taken from here):
* Kill them all and break her out
* Fight Garl in unarmed combat for her
* Buy her from Garl
* Intimidate Garl for her release
* Quietly kill the two guards in back and pick the lock on Tandi's cell.
* This one doesn't work 100% of the time, but if you enter the Raiders area wearing a Leather Jacket, have 10 ST and 10 EN and are male, the raiders will think you are Garl's father who Garl apparently killed to take control of the Khans. You can try and bluff Garl with this ruse and demand Tandi's release.
This isn't the norm.
You don't have to steal things, it's just one option. Obviously getting caught has to have some consequences, so reloading becomes an issue. However, the higher your steal skill is the more likely you are to succeed, and there are also perks that will make it easier to steal. Approaching your target from the side or the rear increases your odds, and the size of the object you're trying to steal is also a factor.
This is what happens when a game isn't dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. You have to be careful and think about what you're doing.
There is no "bullshit," you're just incapable of understanding very simple things, like the fact that not everything in life is either 1 or 0.
I've never admitted such things, and no weasel words have been used. You're making shit up.
I have a feeling you won't understand.
Again, I do not represent anyone. I have never claimed to represent anyone. You brought up representation. Not me.
You said it as if I had specifically mentioned Halo 2.
Again, you are incapable of perceiving shades of grey. To you it's either 1 or 0 with nothing in between.
And you keep making shit up.
Uh huh.
I'm getting the distinct impression that I'm dealing with someone who's posting from a mental asylum.
You are apparently incapable of perceiving anything in shades of grey.
The problem isn't that I can't name genres, the problem is that your brain will only accept ones and zeros.
Uh... er... where did I mention difficulty?
And now I'm on a crusade to... deprive people of games?
I don't remember claiming to represent anyone.
Did I, in fact, say that? I don't think I ever mentioned Halo 2.
For all intents and purposes it does not exist.
They're not weasel words. What are you talking about?
What an astounding leap of logic. Because I don't want gaming to be dumbed down and turned into casual entertainment, I'm an elitist asshole? Wow.
If they have no money they can't play a MMORPG.
Well actually HL2 forces you to watch cutscenes too, and you certainly can't skip them. When people are talking you have to stand there and listen. HL2's method of storytelling doesn't work in most cases because it's very limited and difficult to do.
So in reality all their games sucked ass but people just remember differently because of nostalgia? Uh, I don't think so.
Syberia: 2002. Longest Journey: 1999.
Independent games can rarely compete with mainstream releases because the developers just don't have the necessary budget to do so. With films and music it's a completely different situation.
Adventure gaming has become a small niche market of mostly low or average quality releases. Not exactly like it was back in the days of Sierra, Lucasarts and Infocom.
Considering that several genres have pretty much died out, I'm not sure that's the case. Casual gamers have also become much too prominent, and have dumbed down games and gaming culture.
What's stopping Mr. 120 Hours from using the same potion? Anyway, a game should not even try to take into account how much time some players have to play and how little time others have.
TF2 is all the rage because it appeals to lazy casual gamers who start crying if they play something like Quake. Believe me, I've talked to a lot of TF2 players and this kind of attitude is damn near universal among them.
I played for a few minutes without anything happening.
I have no idea what "statement" Passage is supposed to make, and it isn't really even much of a game considering it's not supposed to be fun. The value of a game is pretty much measured by how much fun it is.
I've watched everything GitS related a few times over, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Passage is shit, though. I played for several minutes, just wandering around, and then quit because nothing was happening and I had no idea what I was supposed to do. It was like playing Pacman without the ghosts, pills and fruits.
By your own logic film and literature cannot be art because there exist books and films that are utter dogshit. There also exist shitty statues, bad photographs and lousy music.
I think anyone who uses "it's supposed to be fun" as an argument should be launched into space.
I'm sure completely arbitrary restrictions and rules are really going to help push video games to the next level as an art form. Do you think films would have gotten where they are now if someone would have announced that there's a "proper" way to do things, and everyone would have gone along with it?
A story isn't going to magically become less artistic because it involves the player moving around and doing things. There is no valid reason whatsoever why you can't make a traditional adventure game that plays out like an interactive film and not be able to call it art (if it's good enough to be called art). Even if the game would be linear, it would still allow some things that films do not, such as different dialogue options (maybe you want to find out more about some subject, maybe you don't) and the ability to examine and explore the environment. A game also has the benefit of not having to care about length so much. A film is usually two hours long with three being the practical limit. A game can spend a much longer time exploring its subject matter.
Maybe you should have read a little further: