I like Fallout but...
Suijau
I like Fallout and think it is a great game however...
Why is there this craze with having one person in
an CRPG these days. LOL2, Fallout... I mean,
sure, people can join you but most of the time,
you are on your own and sometimes even the
character you control is fixed from day 1. What
happened to the good ole RPGs where you
customized your party and took down the baddie
using team work ?
While I could understand that having a demi-
god character at the end that takes out dragons
for breadfast is great for ego, it just doesn't fit in
for me. Part of old time CRPG's fun was in
making a party with people who had weaknesses
as well as strengths and working it all together
like a well oiled machine. These days, you get
only 1 guy who is like superman (can cast spells,
fight, pick locks, whatever). Maybe the game
companies feel that people are so simple minded
these days they can only handle 1 character .....sigh.
I guess I will have to see, maybe Might and Magic VI
can reverse this trend...
Sui Jau
(Sorry for the tone of this post, still not very
happy with the state of CRPG these days
in spite of Fallout.)
Jimmy Chan
Suijau (won...@mbox3.singnet.com.sg) wrote:
:#I like Fallout and think it is a great game however...
:#Why is there this craze with having one person in
:#an CRPG these days. LOL2, Fallout... I mean,
:#sure, people can join you but most of the time,
:#you are on your own and sometimes even the
:#character you control is fixed from day 1. What
:#happened to the good ole RPGs where you
:#customized your party and took down the baddie
:#using team work ?
You'll find that one person chars. in RPGs is nothing new. Most old games
follow this trend. No where does it say about making RPGs that a party
has to consist of many chars. With having a party of more than one
char. it is a little more difficult in getting the feeling of immersion of
the game being 2 or more chars. With have a single char. that you handle
is more immersive as a RPG aspect as you are in charge of the
char. behavior and everything the char. does has some effect on the game.
Even in Pen & Pencil RPGs you don't play a party of chars., you play a
single char. albeit you do run in a party.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Timothy Cain
Well, I made the decision that Fallout would be a single character game, and yes,
there was a lot of arguments for and against this by the rest of the design team.
But I felt it was the only way to emphasize ROLE PLAYING in CRPG's. If you have to
make one character, you have to make choices. How badly do you want targeted shots?
How much is Luck worth to you? Should you emphasize combat skills or thief skills?
I like this kind of balancing.
However, when you let people make a party, all of this goes out the window. You can
make a combat tank, a medic, a diplomat and a thief. Give one high Luck so they
all benefit from the special encounters. Have the diplomat always barter, even for the
other character's equipment. Keep the combat guy out front and the medic in back. This
is starting to feel like min-maxing, not balancing.
And worse, you don't feel like any of these people are YOU, so you lose some of the
role playing experience. In Fallout, that little blue-suited guy or gal is you, and
if you die, game over. You feel more attached.
Anyway, that's what I was thinking three years ago when that decision was made.
Tim.
----------------------
Fallout Producer and Lead Programmer
Interplay Productions
Ryan Hamilton
Jimmy Chan wrote in message <681k5l$k...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
I completely agree with the choice, but I'd just like to point out that I
think that I am 4 people in one
Ryan47
You're just jealous because the voices talk to me.
>This was a good choice. A single char. allows one to feel like that one
>person and that is definitely what role playing is about. I don't think I
>am four people put into one though sometimes I wish I was at least two
>people.
Ben Flieger
Timothy Cain wrote in message <681pun$i...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <681k5l$k...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
> ji...@Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) wrote:
>
>>Timothy Cain (cai...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>Btw, any tidbits on what can be expected from Fallout 2, if you are
>>planning on calling it Fallout 2.
>
>Well, most of it is a Secret (tm), but you can expect a longer game (we've
already
>laid out the world map and it has 50% more locations and there's more to do
in
>each location) and better NPC AI. In fact, everything about the NPC's is
being redone.
>Better AI, more specialization, better control - they'll be just plain more
useful.
>There will also be more of them to choose from.
>
>And I think it will be called Fallout II: Blahblah. We haven't figured out
the
>Blahblah yet, although I did suggest Legacy of Cain as a joke. :)
>
>Tim.
Adventures of Vault-Man. Or Fallout 2: The Sequel To Fallout.(creative)
Jimmy Chan
Timothy Cain (cai...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:#And worse, you don't feel like any of these people are YOU, so you lose some of the
:#role playing experience. In Fallout, that little blue-suited guy or gal is you, and
:#if you die, game over. You feel more attached.
This was a good choice. A single char. allows one to feel like that one
person and that is definitely what role playing is about. I don't think I
am four people put into one though sometimes I wish I was at least two
people. A single char. allows you to base your decisions on how you would
behave in those situations. With multiple chars. in a party, most parties
turn out with at least one healer, one or two long ranged weapon users and
typically two heavy bruisers to take damage and dish it out in melee
combat. Don't know anyone that could fit all four characters into one
person.
Btw, any tidbits on what can be expected from Fallout 2, if you are
planning on calling it Fallout 2.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Timothy Cain
>Timothy Cain (cai...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>Btw, any tidbits on what can be expected from Fallout 2, if you are
>planning on calling it Fallout 2.
Well, most of it is a Secret (tm), but you can expect a longer game (we've already
laid out the world map and it has 50% more locations and there's more to do in
each location) and better NPC AI. In fact, everything about the NPC's is being redone.
Better AI, more specialization, better control - they'll be just plain more useful.
There will also be more of them to choose from.
And I think it will be called Fallout II: Blahblah. We haven't figured out the
Blahblah yet, although I did suggest Legacy of Cain as a joke. :)
Tim.
----------------------
D Rapp
Timothy Cain wrote:
>
> Well, I made the decision that Fallout would be a single character game, and yes,
> there was a lot of arguments for and against this by the rest of the design team.
> But I felt it was the only way to emphasize ROLE PLAYING in CRPG's. If you have to
> make one character, you have to make choices. How badly do you want targeted shots?
> How much is Luck worth to you? Should you emphasize combat skills or thief skills?
> I like this kind of balancing.
>
> However, when you let people make a party, all of this goes out the window. You can
> make a combat tank, a medic, a diplomat and a thief. Give one high Luck so they
> all benefit from the special encounters. Have the diplomat always barter, even for the
> other character's equipment. Keep the combat guy out front and the medic in back. This
> is starting to feel like min-maxing, not balancing.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> Fallout Producer and Lead Programmer
> Interplay Productions
I understand what you are driving at; but don't agree with it. Whether
you play a single character or a party, you still are going to end up
with others assisting you for at least a portion of an adventure. These
NPCs are going to be pregenerated characters with set patterns of
dealing
with situations. I have played P-N-P for years, sometimes using two
characters for adventures at a time. I get much more enjoyment out of
party adventures. The reason is that after so many years of playing a
multitude of characters and interacting with those of other players, I
tend to put some of those traits into each member of the party I create.
Each of those parties are unique. When sitting at the computer at night
playing party-style crpgs, having the brave but slightly stupid fighter
charge headlong while the magic user is trying to cast a fireball brings
a smile to my face remembering how one of our long time players would
ALWAYS do something stupid like this. When I play a single character
crpg, I am made too aware that that's exactly what it is, me sitting at
a
computer with ONE character wandering around a game finishing quests. I
guess the preference is all going to depend on each players frame of
reference. Oh, and one quick technical point. When designed ala Gold
Box, I find the party style more strategically challenging in the battle
portions.
Dan
Led Mirage
In article <681drg$k...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Timothy Cain <cai...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>And worse, you don't feel like any of these people are YOU, so you lose some
of the
>role playing experience. In Fallout, that little blue-suited guy or gal is
you, and
>if you die, game over. You feel more attached.
>
>Anyway, that's what I was thinking three years ago when that decision was made.
>
>Tim.
And that's the right choice IMHO. In those "party" RPGs, like M&M or any
of those AD&D games, the characters are nothing more than instruments.
There's hardly any ROLE playing at all. In Fallout, because of all the
options that are available, I feel much closer to *MY* character. However,
I think the ability to control the NPCs during combat is extremely
important, since they can't really think for themselves. Think of the lead
character as the squad leader.
Timothy Cain
In article <682dev$d9c$1...@gte1.gte.net>,
D Rapp <dr...@gte.net> wrote:
>When designed ala Gold Box, I find the party style more strategically challenging
>in the battle
I agree with you here. This is the one argument someone gave that made me pause for
a long time. Combat with a party is simply more strategic and hence more interesting.
But I was worried that most CRPG's (and Fallout too) have TOO much emphasis on combat,
so I didn't want to add to that.
One day I will make a party-oriented RPG. And a multi-player RPG. And a traditional
dungeon fantasy RPG. There are so many choices and so little time.
Sith Dragon
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 23:12:29 GMT, Timothy Cain <cai...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Anyway, that's what I was thinking three years ago when that decision was made.
>
>Tim.
>----------------------
>Fallout Producer and Lead Programmer
>Interplay Productions
It's been said before, but I'll say it again, your decision vis-a-vis
Fallout was 100% correct.
I got your damn game for Christmas, and even though post-apocalyptic
settings aren't my cup of tea for RPGs, I've been glued to my computer
ever since. One hell of a game.
Sith Dragon Visit my webpage at http://www.walrus.com/~sith for the
-==(UDIC)==- latest in Ultima IX and Ultima Online news plus the new
Ultima IX FAQ.
Eugene Limarenko
Timothy Cain wrote in message <682heg$b...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <682dev$d9c$1...@gte1.gte.net>,
> D Rapp <dr...@gte.net> wrote:
>>When designed ala Gold Box, I find the party style more
>> strategically challenging in the battle
>
>I agree with you here. This is the one argument someone gave that made
>me pause for a long time. Combat with a party is simply more strategic
>and hence more interesting. But I was worried that most CRPG's (and
>Fallout too) have TOO much emphasis on combat, so I didn't want to add
>to that.
>
I prefer party-oriented RPG. Weakness and might.
Single player can't make a mistake. Nobody helps him.
All-around champions - they are not very liked people.
They don't need anybody. No, I prefer party.
Ben Flieger
Eugene Limarenko wrote in message <6855kk$1...@easy.hq.icb.chel.su>...
I also agree here. Nothing like the cliche laden fighter/mage/healer/thief
party.
There seems to be a trend in Console RPGs(which are almost always party) to
go with smaller parties. FF2 had 5 people in a party. FF3 had 4. Chrono
Trigger and Wild Arms both had 3. I believe FF7 has 3 as well, but I have
not played that game in any depth. But from the screen, it seems that 3 is
the max.
>
>
>
Ryan Hamilton
>I agree with you here. This is the one argument someone gave that made me
pause for
>a long time. Combat with a party is simply more strategic and hence more
interesting.
>But I was worried that most CRPG's (and Fallout too) have TOO much emphasis
on combat,
>so I didn't want to add to that.
>
>One day I will make a party-oriented RPG. And a multi-player RPG. And a
traditional
>dungeon fantasy RPG. There are so many choices and so little time.
>
>Tim.
>
A lot of people have been supporting a party system, but I'd just like to
add that I back Fallout up 100% on its choice to go single character. If a
game is really a role playing game, how are you supposed to play 6-8 roles
at a time? Possible, I suppose, but not very practical. In a party game,
while the NPC's may have a distinct personality, your characters seldom do.
One person is seldom identified as the person talking, just someone from
your party...while combat may be better with a party, I'd definitely put
forward that NPC interaction is much more realistic in a single character
game.
One note about NPC's in Fallout:
I would suggest in Fallout 2 having the NPC's who fight with you still have
their own motives. If you shoot Ian's best friend, why should he suddenly
hate that person? Is he so attached to you that he is willing to break off
contact with everyone else and become an outlaw just because you shot the
mayor of Junktown? It seems silly.
Obviously, the situation would be different with Dogmeat.
Ryan47
You can kill Super Mutants at low levels when they start to accidentally hit
each other with flame throwers.
Thatguy Ondanet
I would like to see Fallout 2 give you, the party leader, a little more control
over you party members. I get so frustrated when Ian shoots me or one of the
other party members in the back or puts his own gun up to walk into the frey
with Knife drawn to get shot himself. I mean, realistically, wouldn't you be
able to give your party members simple instructions to follow..like... telling
Ian to attack a particular raider with me while telling Tycho, dogmeat and Katja
to attack another? This one facet improved, I could play this game without undo
frustrtation for months.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this game! It'll set the pace for others to come.
I'm just pointing out things I'd like to see improved upon.
Dennis Ferguson
Suijau wrote in message <01bd120c$146039c0$1fb815a5@default>...
>I like Fallout and think it is a great game however...
Haven't yet played it, but this thread doesn't seem to really be about
'Fallout' so...
>Why is there this craze with having one person in
>an CRPG these days.
>What
>happened to the good ole RPGs where you
>customized your party and took down the baddie
>using team work ?
Ideally, I'd like an RPG where the player controls one character but works
with computer-controlled NPCs in a party. From what I've read, 'Fallout' is
an uneven attempt at providing that. With only one player-controlled
character, you can concentrate on how to develop that character and you can
more easily role-play one person than, say, six. At the same time, the NPCs
mean that the player's character doesn't have to become a demigod and still
has to use teamwork to succeed.
Unfortunately, no game that I've heard of has yet to implement this well --
NPC intelligence just hasn't made the grade yet. Oddly, the most
interesting attempt that I've seen has been in the strategy game Jagged
Alliance (and its sequel). While you control each character, they all have
distinct personalities and sometimes don't quite do what you'd like them to
do.
Dennis
----
df...@erols.com (Erol's Internet)
dfe...@gl.umbc.edu (UMBC)
Newt Doggy Dog
Thatguy Ondanet wrote in message <686gg0$lqc$1...@gte2.gte.net>...
>I would like to see Fallout 2 give you, the party leader, a little more
control
>over you party members. I get so frustrated when Ian shoots me or one of
the
>other party members in the back or puts his own gun up to walk into the
frey
>with Knife drawn to get shot himself. I mean, realistically, wouldn't you
be
>able to give your party members simple instructions to follow..like...
telling
>Ian to attack a particular raider with me while telling Tycho, dogmeat and
Katja
>to attack another? This one facet improved, I could play this game without
undo
>frustrtation for months.
> Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this game! It'll set the pace for others to
come.
>I'm just pointing out things I'd like to see improved upon.
I agree completely. I like the single-role that Fallout provides, along
with the advantage of party combat. But sometimes those NPC's in Fallout
are just too stupid for words.
"Ian, put away that submachine gun, that's just a rat.
<rat-a-tat-a-tat-a-tat-a-tat-a-tat> I think that was a little overkill, Ian.
What's that you say, now you're out of ammo? Sheeesssh..."
(that was a true story, unfortunately...)
We need to be able to direct the NPC's a little more. I don't want to
control every action, but I would like to tell Ian to "Let me take care of
the rats this time, but thanks for offering." Or, tell Tycho and Katja to
defend the door against incoming guards while the rest of us hack everybody
inside. They should be smart enough not to use spray weapons when a
friendly is likely to be hit (unless Ian simply has an INT of 2).
We also need a MUCH better way to exchange inventory among the party.
Barter and Steal just are not intuitive, and they're a real pain the way
Fallout implemented them. Just give me a screen with all NPC's inventories
side-by-side and let me drag objects from one to another as weight permits.
Also, I want to be able to see what weapons the NPC's currently have ready.
With Barter and Steal I can see what's in their inventory but not what's in
their hands. I shouldn't have to keep paper notes on what everyone is
holding.
M. Gardner
Newt Doggy Dog <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<686t53$c1o$1...@newman.pcisys.net>...
Another thing I think would have been appropriate in Fallout and a possible
addition to Fallout II is the use of some form of transportation to move
around the map (i.e. between cities/towns, etc...). I mean the character
walked everywhere and especially in a post-nuked world, I can see the use
of horses or some such to get around, maybe salvaged vehicles from the past
for groups like the Brotherhood or Mutant Army. I don't believe everybody
would just walk around the wastelands. Just my thoughts on an otherwise
great game. Best I've played since the Crusader series.
RASPUTINXS
>One day I will make a party-oriented RPG. And a multi-player RPG. And a
>traditional
>dungeon fantasy RPG. There are so many choices and so little time.
>
>Tim.
The one element I feel is missing from current CRPG's is outerwordly weirdness.
FallOut tastes more like Mad Max than what I would prefer - an old TSR
gameworld titled Gamma World. The nuke had dropped, Earth was shattered. And
here you were, picking up the pieces from Earth's past in order to create a
better future. One of the best modules in that series was one in which our
party found an entrance to an old underwater lab the government had been
working on. Populated by robot constructs left automated by their masters so
many decades ago, they just kept following their programming. It's fantastic
elements like this that draws people into a game; makes them remember it; makes
them 'gather round the watercooler' and talk about weird places as if they had
been really there. And thats what a CRPG is trying to accomplish, right?
In otherwords, for all the great technical wizardry, it seems the storytelling
element is getting lost. Storytelling IS an art form from the dawn of man.
CRPG's cannot change what this is, but should just enhance it. I'm thinking
there are too many good programer's out there and not enough GOOD
writers/storyteller's.
Rasputin
P.S. - I'm a writer myself if you couldn't tell.
teq...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
In article <682408$a...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Ben Flieger <a...@spamdis.primenet.com> wrote:
>Timothy Cain wrote in message <681pun$i...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>>And I think it will be called Fallout II: Blahblah. We haven't figured out
>the
>>Blahblah yet, although I did suggest Legacy of Cain as a joke. :)
>>Tim.
>Adventures of Vault-Man. Or Fallout 2: The Sequel To Fallout.(creative)
How about Fallout 2:
Electric Boogaloo!
The Revenge!
The Wrath of Khan!
--
Hungry Dragon | Ajaipal Tanwar(teq...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu)
-==(UDIC)==- | University of Texas @ Austin
Ilya
Fallout 2: Return to Junktown
Jon Velapoldi
Timothy Cain (cai...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <681k5l$k...@news.Hawaii.Edu>,
: ji...@Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) wrote:
: >Timothy Cain (cai...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >Btw, any tidbits on what can be expected from Fallout 2, if you are
: >planning on calling it Fallout 2.
: And I think it will be called Fallout II: Blahblah. We haven't figured
:out the Blahblah yet, although I did suggest Legacy of Cain as a joke.)
Heh heh, I think that : Fallout 2: a Post-Save-the-world-after-a-Nuclear-
Apocalypse RPG would be fitting...
You can count me in as a buyer... assuming I'm still breathing, that is...
--
Jon
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~asterix
Graduate Research-type person
Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory
University of Maryland, College Park
MCBad4Life
>Heh heh, I think that : Fallout 2: a
>Apocalypse RPG would be fitting...<BR>
><BR>
>You can count me in as a buyer... assuming I'm still breathing, that
According to Chris Taylor of Interplay Fallout 2 will take place 80 years after
Fallout and in a different location. Unfortunatelly I'm hoping they scrap this
idea. I would rather see my character return to save the world again and earn
some damn credit for it.
Jimmy Chan
MCBad4Life (mcbad...@aol.com) wrote:
:#According to Chris Taylor of Interplay Fallout 2 will take place 80 years after
:#Fallout and in a different location. Unfortunatelly I'm hoping they scrap this
:#idea. I would rather see my character return to save the world again and earn
:#some damn credit for it.
Maybe they could freeze your character so he can be defrosted to come back
and save the world again...8-).
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
MCBad4Life
>Maybe they could freeze your character so he can be defrosted to come
>and save the world
True, but no one knows what happened to him.
Jimmy Chan
MCBad4Life (mcbad...@aol.com) wrote:
:#>Maybe they could freeze your character so he can be defrosted to come
:#>back<BR>
:#>and save the world
:#True, but no one knows what happened to him.
There could be legends of this guy/gal who saved the world years ago and
will come back to save the world once again when it is endangered once
again..8-). A little like Mad Max.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
hp...@gte.net
I would much rather see Fallout as open-ended, where we could get
add-ons instead of whole new games - just like the old paper rpg's
where there were "modules." So that you could continue to build up
your character.
About the only rpg's that I recall that allowed this is the old
gold-box and dark sun games (except you lost stuff in the process of
transferring characters) and the Realms of Arkania games.
mcbad...@aol.com (MCBad4Life) wrote:
>>Heh heh, I think that : Fallout 2: a
>>Post-Save-the-world-after-a-Nuclear-<BR>
>>Apocalypse RPG would be fitting...<BR>
>><BR>
>>You can count me in as a buyer... assuming I'm still breathing, that
>
>According to Chris Taylor of Interplay Fallout 2 will take place 80 years after
>Fallout and in a different location. Unfortunatelly I'm hoping they scrap this
>idea. I would rather see my character return to save the world again and earn
Vic
hp...@gte.net wrote:
>I would much rather see Fallout as open-ended, where we could get
>add-ons instead of whole new games - just like the old paper rpg's
>where there were "modules." So that you could continue to build up
>your character.
>
I think this is a great idea, & FALLOUT is extremely well suited to
it. I can easily envision 3rd party companies putting out modules for
it, a la HELLFIRE. That would allow FALLOUT 2 to be whatever without
disappointing those enamored of their characters.
It's an excellent system, but I'd like to see a few options in combat
such as kneeling/prone, which might make cover more meaningful - or at
least more understandable to the player, since I believe the manual
says cover's taaken into account in the modifiers.
-Vic
Michael Lo
Those group RPGs still exist but think of this.
Tank-big, stupid fighter can think on the level of two year old but
hit like a rampaging elephant.
Pansy Mage-couldn't use armor or weapons if their lives depended on it
but can throw magic
Holy Fellow-can heal, can sorta fight
Those are characters? To me they become indistinct other than the
fact that one is strong and the other can use magic. They had so
many artificial limits on them that you couldn't break up the party
or you'll die. You say it's unrealistic to have the so-called demigod
one man/woman of Diablo or Fallout but even those characters couldn't
do it all. In Diablo you had item and spell restrictions from your
character statistics, you're too dumb or too weak not because so and
so said its against the rules. Fallout, had its way of keeping your
character in line too, you chose how you allocate your skills and
stats from a limited resource pool. You could be an ultra-strong genius
or an ultra-strong acrobat, but you can't be an ultra-strong, genius,
acrobat charmer. Every skill point you stick in weaponry means less
ability to your speaking and bartering ability. But at least your
characters were flexible, my character has a -1% chance of hitting someone
with a large weapon and with her strength of 4 it becomes a -21% chance. Sure
she'd be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn but at least she can use it.
The characters in those multicharacter parties are so inflexible that it's a joke, a wizard isn't just merely bad at fighting he can't do it all. And demigods
are not unique to one player games, the level 30 or 99 characters of Bard's Tale
or the Gold Box games can pretty much slaughter whatever they want. Notice
how in the Gold Box games, you never encounter goblins again after Pool of Radiance even though they are supposed to be easily the most common creatures
in the world.
I'm attached to my Fallout character far more than I've been with my Pool of
Radiance party or any AD&D video game party. I deck out my character with
leather jacket, 10mm and shotgun and duke it out with Raiders even though
I carry power armor and alien blaster. I call that the Mad Max theme.
When things get hairy I whip out combat armor, combat shotgun, assault
rifle and minigun plus some grenades in my Command and Conquer Urban Shock
Trooper theme because it feels right. I don't blow people up sporadically
on whim because it doesn't feel right with this character but I will rob
everyone blind as she is Natalia but modified with good nature rather than
Night Person. I feel absolutely no attachment to my party characters, in
Pool of Radiance in one of those big free for alls I rush everyone in to
get killed because I'm getting fed up with the gazillion big fights and
skirmishes. In Eye of the Beholder, which I played at my friends I just
sit back and watch my party drop like flies as they have no personality.
But I'll willingly take a bullet in the back or front to keep Ian, Tycho
Katja and Dogmeat from being killed. One thing you can't fault your fellows
for lack of enthusiasm.
For me I personally feel that the Rpg is in much better shape than its ever
been. The D&D gold boxes meant nothing to me but that I can hack my way
out of 50 orcs in one battle (they were all like that too and there were
more than six of them too, talk about milking your dead cows) and the Might
and Magics felt lifeless (I do look for to seeing number 6 as it tries for
something new and different). What I like is the variety of themes present
today. There's Final Fantasy 7 for PC, Skies, Septerra Core, Ultima 9, Elric
Chaos Gate, and whatnot. At the very least they aren't Daemons Gate, the
kazillion Gold Boxes, the 3 Eye of the Beholders which never change.
Stick to your pen and paper if you like, but you've played it people who
talking about raping pixies or shoving sharp objects up an orc's nether regions
you look forward to these video games, at the very least you encounter more
personality.
"Suijau" <won...@mbox3.singnet.com.sg> writes:
>I like Fallout and think it is a great game however...
>Why is there this craze with having one person in
>an CRPG these days. LOL2, Fallout... I mean,
>sure, people can join you but most of the time,
>you are on your own and sometimes even the
>character you control is fixed from day 1. What
>happened to the good ole RPGs where you
>customized your party and took down the baddie
>using team work ?
>While I could understand that having a demi-
>god character at the end that takes out dragons
>for breadfast is great for ego, it just doesn't fit in
>for me. Part of old time CRPG's fun was in
>making a party with people who had weaknesses
>as well as strengths and working it all together
>like a well oiled machine. These days, you get
>only 1 guy who is like superman (can cast spells,
>fight, pick locks, whatever). Maybe the game
>companies feel that people are so simple minded
>these days they can only handle 1 character .....sigh.
>I guess I will have to see, maybe Might and Magic VI
>can reverse this trend...
>Sui Jau
>(Sorry for the tone of this post, still not very
>happy with the state of CRPG these days
>in spite of Fallout.)
:x
Michael Lo
One other thing, Mr. Suijau made the implication that the
companies are throwing these singleplayers because they
think today's players are too simple minded or stupid to
handle a party. I have to say the following I've played
the old CRPGs and finished things like Pool of Radiance,
Secret of the Silver Blades, Death Knights of Krynn, Ultima 3,4,5
and etc. There's no secret that if you wedge your grunts in front
of your magicians and think about your enemies' weaknesses that
you'll win (In Pool of Radiance, I managed to destroy the bandit
encampment even though everyone of those bozos ganged up on me and
the strongest fighter I had was 18(63) and the rest of my grunts
had strength 17. I hope I don't seem like I'm bragging and apologize
if I do but that fight was memorable because it took over an hour and
a half. Talk about being unpleasant. Later a friend played and I
saw a pig pen and opened it which broke up the encampent, boy did I
feel stupid then).
I get no feeling from these so-called team victories because you're
rarely in any real danger. Fighter getting hurt no problem, get the
Cleric to heal him while Mage fireballs room and wipes out some of
the opposition. In the Single-Player games, fights are more vicious.
Sure you know how to heal yourself a tad but it's hard when someone
is clubbing you in the head first. Sure your fellow can lockpick
but he's not nearly as good as the level 18 thief from Secret
of the Silver Blades of course, unless you are a specialist. The
fight with the Rough Guards holding the Initiate hostage in Old Town
got me killed 3 times even though I had Power Armor. The guy with
the Combat Shotgun always seems to plug me with a critical that knocks
me down while yonder his friends starting shelling me. I got killed
before the last of his group had his turn. Some demigod
Before I go, I apologize to anyone who likes the AD&D Gold Boxe that
I may have offended. I know a lot of people treat those as the "Classics"
I just have differing opinions on that one.
MCBad4Life
>I'm attached to my Fallout character far more than I've been with > my Pool of
Radiance party or any AD&D video game party.
You're not the only one
Suijau
*Grin* oh well, different people, different tastes !
I did like Fallout but I maintain that I like party
based CRPGs better. :)
Sui Jau
(Still waiting for Might and Magic VI )
I think I am going to start chewing on
carpets soon too !
Michael Lo
I guess it depends on what you think the purpose of the other party members
should be. If you like pragmatism, you go for the standard RPG lineup of
fighter,mage, healer and etc.
I rather prefer the console RPG game usage of the party. Each character
is actually unique and many are often relatively useless. But they bring
personality by sticking in dialogue or reacting to your choices, many
have subquests that revolve around the character.
How about this for a party for a Fantasy RPG:
Urlock the Emasculator-legendary warrior of incomparable fighting prowess.
Truth is the guy's a 100 lb weakling with perpetual allergies, the reason
for this is he's got excellent PR and can boot a guy in the nuts at 50 paces.
Pug Mushbrain-this guy will be the stereotypical magician except that he
is mentally retarded and epileptic. Uses magic because of the psychospiritual
nature that epilepsy is supposed to grant. He'll be built like an ox, albeit
a grossly fat, verge of cardiac arrest, bumpkin of an ox.
Father Murphy the Not So Holy as Pope John Paul or any other person in the
religious business-take every stereotype of a drunk and perverted greedy priest
and you have this fellow. Can't use any of that holy claptrap because frankly
he doesn't believe in it in the first place, only donned the robe so that he
can sucker the faithful and makeout with the parish wives. Totally useless,
main purpose is to be cannon fodder.
Can we see characters like these in Fallout 2? Not everyone has to be useful
Ian has endeared himself to me with his relentless shooting of my back and
the courageous effort in machine gunning rats. Dogmeat is another fan favorite
the poor mutt must be part lemming with all those suicide rushes he performs.
No dogmeat, don't go after the Deathclaw!
Can we see more nonhuman NPCs like robots and mutants, they don't even have
to be human. I encountered some sort of beasty called a centaur and he looked
pretty cool. How about one of those as a pet?
Question to anyone who has played Fallout, what monsters have you encountered?
Other than Deathclaws, Mole Rats, Super Mutants and Radscorpions, I have only
encountered a centaur and that was once only too. I didn't get a chance to
fight it as I only had a knife, a 10mm, the vault 13 blue suit and I sucked
with those weapons too.
jo...@diespam.net
Yea - but single character rpg's aren't very - for lack of a better
term - "realistic." I mean - is anyone in their right mind gonna go
out and take on deathclaws by themselves? No. People band together
for strength and support, and greed - so it makes sense for a fantasy
world as well as IRL. Besides - if/when you played AD&D or other
paper rpg's - wasn't it more fun and "realistic" to have a party of 4
or more characters?
One of my favorite (and I consider one of the best) "rpgs" was
Twilight:2000 for the PC. The character generation process was very
slick but somewhat random and you actually got a sense of background
for your characters "Ok - Joe was a Harvard Med. Grad who was in the
ROTC - so that's why he was an Army field surgeon when the war broke
out and Yevgeniy was a Ukrainian farmboy who learned how to fix
tractors on the state collective - so that's how come his wheeled
vehicle skills are so high." There were 20 - that's right - 20!
characters in your party, but only 4 went out at a time. You had to
decide on who was going out based on the mission parameters. Of
course - the game did break down - it became repetitive to continually
transport medicine to some village or pick up some supplies from
another village. But it was fun - and the sense of accomplishment
every time you found or captured a new vehicle was great. Not to
mention the most realistic (for it's time) combat system.
What I'd like to see - Party-based Fallout 2, using the same isometric
view.
Other games that would be cool to be translated to the PC:
Gamma World, Top Secret, Paranoia...and a true AD&D game - one that
followed ALL the rules from the pnp version - and one in which you
could play all of the classic pnp modules. Anyone remember the
Giants-Drow-Queen of Spiders series? Or how about Hommlet?
Whiteplume Mountain? The Slavers modules? How about the S-module
(S3?) that had your party explore a crash landed space ship with
robots and computers on board?
The problem with the logic of no sense of team victory because its too
easy? Come on - I've been killed in plenty of battles in the Gold Box
games until I figured out good strategies. The Trolls in the slums in
Pool of Radiance - I finally figured out that I should wait until my
magic-users reach 3rd level so they can cast fire ball spells. In
single character rpg's, you have to tone down the opposition a bit to
allow for a possible victory or risk turning the game into a twitch
game - how fast can you tap buttons to make your guy swing a sword.
That's not to say that strategy and tactics aren't also req'd in
single character "rpg's" I got killed a bunch of times in Diablo as
the mage until I figured out to box in the Butcher using Firewall
spells. And I got stomped quite a few times in Fallout until I
figured out which guys to attack first and with what weapons.
The MAJOR problem I have with single character rpg's is that to
succeed you have to become a jack-of-all-trades - exept you have to
master them all. With multi-character rpg's, it is closer to
real-life. We have doctors, lawyers, engineers, receptionists,
janitors, mechanics. Sure that doctor may be able to change his oil,
but has no clue how to change a timing belt. Similarly, that janitor
may be cpr-trained but there is no way he is going to perform brain
surgery. Just like irl, the multi-character party has a multitude of
skills and abilities - yea that dwarven fighter/thief can swing an
axe, but can that 6'5" fighter also pick locks like the thief? The
elven cleric/mage can sling fireballs to act as a backup in case the
primary mage character goes down in battle - or he can heal him so he
can continue fighting.
I like the variety of a multi-character rpg - but to each his own.
JP
Jimmy Chan
jo...@diespam.net wrote:
:#Yea - but single character rpg's aren't very - for lack of a better
:#term - "realistic." I mean - is anyone in their right mind gonna go
:#out and take on deathclaws by themselves? No. People band together
:#for strength and support, and greed - so it makes sense for a fantasy
:#world as well as IRL. Besides - if/when you played AD&D or other
:#paper rpg's - wasn't it more fun and "realistic" to have a party of 4
:#or more characters?
It's a lot more realistic than one person controlling or being 4-6 people.
Nor do you see people of so many different characteristics gathering
together. In real life, the jocks don't mix with the geeks, each are in
their own worlds. A single character RPG is a lot more realistic because
whatever you feel you are you can configure your character that way and see
how it fares in the fantasy world.
:#What I'd like to see - Party-based Fallout 2, using the same isometric
:#view.
I'd rather see multiplayer in some future Fallout, not necessarily Fallout
2. A party-based Fallout could be possible in a multiplayer setting but
leave it one player-one character.
:#The problem with the logic of no sense of team victory because its too
:#easy? Come on - I've been killed in plenty of battles in the Gold Box
:#games until I figured out good strategies.
The trouble with party based RPGs is that the designers then have to create
large parties of enemies or 'Bosses' so that it takes a party to defeat
them.
:#The MAJOR problem I have with single character rpg's is that to
:#succeed you have to become a jack-of-all-trades - exept you have to
:#master them all. With multi-character rpg's, it is closer to
:#real-life. We have doctors, lawyers, engineers, receptionists,
:#janitors, mechanics. Sure that doctor may be able to change his oil,
:#but has no clue how to change a timing belt. Similarly, that janitor
:#may be cpr-trained but there is no way he is going to perform brain
:#surgery. Just like irl, the multi-character party has a multitude of
:#skills and abilities - yea that dwarven fighter/thief can swing an
:#axe, but can that 6'5" fighter also pick locks like the thief? The
:#elven cleric/mage can sling fireballs to act as a backup in case the
:#primary mage character goes down in battle - or he can heal him so he
:#can continue fighting.
A big problem with party based RPGS is that characters are specialized in
their trades, how many people in real life only do one thing. Everyone in
real life is a jack of all trades, a mechanic can still do some basic first
aid, a lawyer can still work on his car, etc. In a party-based RPG, the
limitations upon each trade is artificial. A fighter cannot learn how to
heal or cast magic, a healer cannot carry an edged weapon, etc. Show me
one doctor that cannot use an edged weapon in real life and I'll change my
mind.
:#I like the variety of a multi-character rpg - but to each his own.
Yes, each to his own.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Ryan Hamilton
The thing about this comparison that I don't like is that in the paper and
pencil roleplaying games, while there is a party, you yourself control only
one person, allowing for a better roleplaying experience. Its hard for me to
get in the role of a sarcastic mage, a pious cleric, a shady theif, and a
loud but lovable barbarian + other characters all at once.... not saying
that party CRPG's are bad, Might and Magic games are the best, but I must
put forward that in the actual NPC interaction and playing in-depth roles,
party games can't stand up to single character ones.
Ryan47
go to
http://tmbg.res.cmu.edu/~ryan47/haiku.htm
send me some haikus.
jo...@diespam.net wrote in message
<1E541FC085463FE7.A7FEAF0D...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
jo...@diespam.net
ji...@Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) wrote:
>jo...@diespam.net wrote:
>:#Yea - but single character rpg's aren't very - for lack of a better
>:#term - "realistic." I mean - is anyone in their right mind gonna go
>:#out and take on deathclaws by themselves? No. People band together
>:#for strength and support, and greed - so it makes sense for a fantasy
>:#world as well as IRL. Besides - if/when you played AD&D or other
>:#paper rpg's - wasn't it more fun and "realistic" to have a party of 4
>:#or more characters?
>
>It's a lot more realistic than one person controlling or being 4-6 people.
>Nor do you see people of so many different characteristics gathering
>together. In real life, the jocks don't mix with the geeks, each are in
>their own worlds. A single character RPG is a lot more realistic because
>whatever you feel you are you can configure your character that way and see
>how it fares in the fantasy world.
>
But that is just it - you are the interface - you are not the
characters. And, yes, in real life, jocks and geeks do mix - usually
for a larger cause - money.
But - everyone is not a jack-of-all-trades in real life. How many
people can you honestly say you know can do basic first aid w/o panic.
How many people even know what a lug wrench is? Granted, its not hard
to change the oil in the car - but given the amount of quickie lube
places open, my guess is not many people REALLY know how to do a lot
of maintenance on their cars. Likewise - in a fantasy world - the
fighter may know how to do magic, but he just doesn't know the way it
really works. As far as restrictions - there is always the multi- or
dual- class characters in AD&D, and some classes give limited amounts
of different abilities (the ranger comes to mind). Besides - the
restrictions are artificial only because it is a Crpg - in the pnp
versions, you can pretty much change the rules as you see fit.
Although I like Fallout alot - you are still limited - except now you
only have a single character - you are EITHER the hulking bruiser or
the diplomat - you can't be both.
Jimmy Chan
jo...@diespam.net wrote:
:#ji...@Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) wrote:
:#But that is just it - you are the interface - you are not the
:#characters. And, yes, in real life, jocks and geeks do mix - usually
:#for a larger cause - money.
I don't think I like being an interface. I'd like to see a geek playing
football against some of those big guys.
:#But - everyone is not a jack-of-all-trades in real life. How many
:#people can you honestly say you know can do basic first aid w/o panic.
:#How many people even know what a lug wrench is? Granted, its not hard
:#to change the oil in the car - but given the amount of quickie lube
:#places open, my guess is not many people REALLY know how to do a lot
:#of maintenance on their cars. Likewise - in a fantasy world - the
:#fighter may know how to do magic, but he just doesn't know the way it
:#really works.
A person isn't a robot doing one specialized job. A person is capable of
performing or doing different things if they feel like doing it but a lot
of people would rather someone else do it instead of learning how to do
it.
:#As far as restrictions - there is always the multi- or
:#dual- class characters in AD&D, and some classes give limited amounts
:#of different abilities (the ranger comes to mind). Besides - the
:#restrictions are artificial only because it is a Crpg - in the pnp
:#versions, you can pretty much change the rules as you see fit.
:#Although I like Fallout alot - you are still limited - except now you
:#only have a single character - you are EITHER the hulking bruiser or
:#the diplomat - you can't be both.
Actually, in Fallout you can be both, except you can't be a hulking bruiser
or the best diplomat but you can be a medium bruiser with adequate or good
speech skills.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Joachim Flodqvist
[Regarding party vs. single character game]
> Although I like Fallout alot - you are still limited - except now you
> only have a single character - you are EITHER the hulking bruiser or
> the diplomat - you can't be both.
Ok. So let's say you actually *had* used a party in Fallout. And let's
say you played through once.
Since you've had several characters, you'll have seen a lot more than a
single character (presuming they don't all have the same skills &
stats). The party leader is intelligent with high charisma and speech
skill (making all dialogue options available). There's one guy with
high perception and luck (finding all the fun random encounters). Blah,
blah, blah.
So. When you decide to play the next time.. How will it be?
You'll have seen a lot more of the world, and you'll be aware of a lot
more options than if you had played a single character. More
importantly, you'll most likely have had a member in the party who could
*solve* the quests/problems you found.
This takes a fairly large portion of the replay value out of the game.
From a programmer's/designer's perspective, I'd say there's no longer
any real need to make the quests soluble in several different ways,
since most options will be open to everyone anyway.
Lastly, there's the question of party composition. How's the party gonna
look the second time through? You'll still have a scout, a doctor, a
fighter, blah, blah, blah. There probably won't be much change in the
characters.
This removes another large portion of the replay value.
When I played through Fallout the first time, I suspected that there was
actually a lot of stuff/options that I had not seen. I also knew of a
lot of stuff that I had seen, but had to skip for various reasons.
(time, poor skills etc.). The best, though, was that the next time I
played through, I knew it'd be different because I'd do it with another
character. A *completely* different character. Just to see how he'd fit
in the world, and what options he'd have.
Just an opinion.
/J
--
Lente Impelle.
joa...@ecs.se
Sarah Ettritch
In article <34B877...@ecs.se>, joa...@ecs.se says...
>
>jo...@diespam.net wrote:
>>
>> ji...@Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) wrote:
>>
>> >jo...@diespam.net wrote:
>
>[Regarding party vs. single character game]
>
>> Although I like Fallout alot - you are still limited - except now you
>> only have a single character - you are EITHER the hulking bruiser or
>> the diplomat - you can't be both.
>
>Ok. So let's say you actually *had* used a party in Fallout. And let's
>say you played through once.
>
>Since you've had several characters, you'll have seen a lot more than a
>single character (presuming they don't all have the same skills &
>stats). The party leader is intelligent with high charisma and speech
>skill (making all dialogue options available). There's one guy with
>high perception and luck (finding all the fun random encounters). Blah,
>blah, blah.
Also, even if you did have this option, you'd still, at times, only be the
hulking bruiser or the diplomat depending on which character was going to
use his/her skills to deal with a situation. Playing a party is kind of
artificial in this way because when you choose to use one character's
skills, the other characters blend away as if they don't exist. If it was
true party dynamics, you would see things like your diplomat just about to
clinch some negotiations, when the hulking bruiser blurts out something
inflammatory that causes the whole thing to fall apart and reduced to a
brawl.
As far as role playing goes, I think Fallout is more true to life because
you are limited to the skills of your character, and nobody would be great
at all the skills. Ok, we don't want real life when we play games, but I
think having puzzles and situations with solutions dependent on how you
have developed your character's skills is a hallmark of a good RPG,
because it means that the development of your character makes a
difference. And as was pointed out, it also increases replayability.
Sarah.
Michael Lo
Sorry it's been a while since I responded but I wish to clarify what I mean
by the gold boxes never feeling to me like a team victory. It wasn't that
they were too easy (actually fights were difficult unless you had an idea
of how to cope with the situation at hand). It was because it didn't feel
like a team. The Pcs move according to where you direct them but they had
no individual intiative. This I liked about Ultima 6-7, and fallout. You
weren't able to predict exactly what the PC's were going to do and so you
had to do strategy on the fly, but it was that the fact that they did things
on their own which in the end furthered the party is what I like. A number
of occassions the computer controlled Party character would pull some stupid
stunt that I wouldn't have the guts to do but often it worked so go figure.
I love Diablo when I play with my friends from my old high school because
though you know no one is going to pkill one another there's a certain unpredictability to what's going on like when one friend first played and paniced spraying arrows into a room full of monsters which alerted them to our presence.
It's like the feeling you get when playing on a perpetually losing amateur
team, your team mates improve, people are having fun, and eventually you'll
win one.
As to your comments about having a party of dual or multiclassed characters,
the problem with those are that you get some real dumb and utterly unrealistic
restrictions, such as you can only be of a certain race (somewhat logical
if your race doesn't permit that class in the first place but otherwise not
at all), you have severely reduced levels as opposed to experience earning
penalty, or the really weird dual class thing which meant that you cannot
use the abilities of your former class until you exceeded the level of your
old class first. After that you can never improve in your old class ever again.
No offence to anyone who is a fan of AD&D but in my opinion (and I speak only
for myself) I think AD&D has got to be worst system out of all the ones I've
seen, I think the D&D system is actually superior in many ways. I mean look
at the races, is any game ever that biased towards humans? A human fighter
can go to unlimited levels with usual maximum limits being 20-36, the second
top fighter race is the dwarf and that guy can only go to level 9. The game
then states some spiel about how unfair it would be to human characters because
dwarves live so long and have a couple of special abilities, whatever. At least
in the old D&d system even though the dwarf maxes out in levels at 13, he still
improves with experience which increases his to hit roll and ups his number of
attacks, the dwarf also got reduced magic damage at high experience.
Then there's the perenial thing about armor class, it doesn't matter if you're
just wearing a jock strap or lugging 30 feet of armor getting hit for whatever
damage is still the same. There is no reduction for anything (Gamma World
at least had the forcefields which sponged off damage, while Warhammer had
toughness and armor penetration rule which meant that somethings were just
too tough for lesser weapons to affect) and the natural 20 rule meant that
anything could be hit. The game also had some strange things with magic like
constantly having to rememorize spells because it is forgotten when cast and
how no matter how good you are you can only memorize 9 first level spells,
magic was also unbalanced, the fighter was stuck to how much damage he can do
based on his strength and weapon but a magician can keep increasing in damage
for his magic. So they tried to balance it with equipment restrictions. At
least the old D&D system had the weapon mastery level which AD&D is reviving andmagic had a damage cap. Sure you can make a ton of house rules but if you have
to make a ton of house rules something must be wrong in the first place, when
I first played it with some friends by the time we were finished making house
rules that improved to game to us it no longer liked AD&D, another telling
thing is that if you have to constantly make new rules editions and actually
go back to older rules too.
Systems I like:
Darklands
Fallout
Warhammer Battle System and Warhammer Quest
Jorune
Ultima
GURPS
Hero System
and a number of new systems (too many to mention)
Sorry if I ranted and seemed too harsh in my opinion but a number of people
have been ranting about the good old days and I was a part of the good old days
and they just don't seem that good.
jo...@diespam.net writes:
>ji...@Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) wrote:
>>jo...@diespam.net wrote:
>>:#Yea - but single character rpg's aren't very - for lack of a better
>>:#term - "realistic." I mean - is anyone in their right mind gonna go
>>:#out and take on deathclaws by themselves? No. People band together
>>:#for strength and support, and greed - so it makes sense for a fantasy
>>:#world as well as IRL. Besides - if/when you played AD&D or other
>>:#paper rpg's - wasn't it more fun and "realistic" to have a party of 4
>>:#or more characters?
>>
>>It's a lot more realistic than one person controlling or being 4-6 people.
>>Nor do you see people of so many different characteristics gathering
>>together. In real life, the jocks don't mix with the geeks, each are in
>>their own worlds. A single character RPG is a lot more realistic because
>>whatever you feel you are you can configure your character that way and see
>>how it fares in the fantasy world.
>>
>But that is just it - you are the interface - you are not the
>characters. And, yes, in real life, jocks and geeks do mix - usually
>for a larger cause - money.
>>:#What I'd like to see - Party-based Fallout 2, using the same isometric
>But - everyone is not a jack-of-all-trades in real life. How many
>people can you honestly say you know can do basic first aid w/o panic.
>How many people even know what a lug wrench is? Granted, its not hard
>to change the oil in the car - but given the amount of quickie lube
>places open, my guess is not many people REALLY know how to do a lot
>of maintenance on their cars. Likewise - in a fantasy world - the
>fighter may know how to do magic, but he just doesn't know the way it
>really works. As far as restrictions - there is always the multi- or
>dual- class characters in AD&D, and some classes give limited amounts
>of different abilities (the ranger comes to mind). Besides - the
>restrictions are artificial only because it is a Crpg - in the pnp
>versions, you can pretty much change the rules as you see fit.
>Although I like Fallout alot - you are still limited - except now you
>only have a single character - you are EITHER the hulking bruiser or
>the diplomat - you can't be both.
>>:#I like the variety of a multi-character rpg - but to each his own.
Patrick Mcginley
Sarah Ettritch (ettr...@idirect.com) scribbled something about:
: Also, even if you did have this option, you'd still, at times, only be the
: hulking bruiser or the diplomat depending on which character was going to
: use his/her skills to deal with a situation. Playing a party is kind of
: artificial in this way because when you choose to use one character's
: skills, the other characters blend away as if they don't exist. If it was
: true party dynamics, you would see things like your diplomat just about to
: clinch some negotiations, when the hulking bruiser blurts out something
: inflammatory that causes the whole thing to fall apart and reduced to a
: brawl.
Excellent points! In CRPG's, everyone carries themselves like they all
have 18 ints, but are just restricted in what they can do. They are
greatly entertaining and fun, but fighters never do anything stupid based
on low intelligence, Wizards never fall gasping for breath in the middle
of a drawn out battle because of low constitution, Thieves never sneak
off and steal a little something extra, and Paladin's don't act like the
arrogant snots they are. (I'm sure there are individual instances of this
in various games, but it is very infrequent.)
Fallout is different because your choice of character makes a difference.
My stupid character was not a rocket scientist and lots of people let him
know that! It actually reminded me of the times we would let a new D&D
player play a low int. fighter. They would actually role play better
because they were always confused and always wanted to fight.
--
================================================================
Patrick McGinley * Hey kids, really bored? Well then
Net Admin * find something constructive or
and all around swanky guy * visit me at www.execpc.com/~patrick