2devs1engine

[Vault Dweller]

There is no greater way to fuck up a zombie RPG than using a straight HP system for zombies with imbalanced weapons as though it's a fucking shoot' em up.

It is my understanding that the game isn't about fighting zombies but dealing with other groups and surviving. The zombies are merely a background. Purely out of curiosity, what's wrong with a straight HP system for zombies? The "headshots must be fatal" thing? That's easy to replicate - large to hit penalties for head attacks, large critical multiplier (enough to kill 9/10) on a successful attack. If you are just blasting/hacking them to pieces (as most people would, I assume), then the HP system would work fine.

And no amount of DMG vs HP tweaking will absolve a game with crap authenticity.

?

Then again, it took him how many years to finally see that AI controlled party is a no go?

I don't know why he changed it. Maybe he changed his mind (people are allowed to do that), maybe he saw all the complaints about AoD's combat, maybe too many people were bugging him. It's his game and his decision, but there was nothing wrong with his original idea. A player controlled party is always more tactical, but tactical isn't what you should be going for in a proper zombie game where you lead a group of scared-shitless, panic-prone survivors most of whom have never been in a fight or held a gun until today. Playing them as a coordinated elite group of professional ass-kickers might be more fun for people who just want tactical combat regardless of the setting/story, but might feel a bit wrong for others.

 

[Roguey]

I believe Brian said there are no aimed shots because it's assumed every attack on a zombie is aimed at its head.
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2821.0.html

Head shots and other aimed shots. I saw mention that it would be a ranged perk. Why? It makes perfect sense to aim for the head in melee as well. If you come up behind a zombie you have all the time you need to aim carefully and smash its brains out. It seems very strange that you wouldn't have that as a key feature for any attack type.
Every crit on a zombie is considered a headshot, because that’s what people are trying to hit. The “shoot the head” perk gives a higher chance to crit with firearms against zombies and only zombies. Otherwise, at a certain point combat turns into Fallout where everyone pumps up ranged and perception and does nothing but targeted headshots over and over.

It starts out as a mediocre Half-life clone with decent atmosphere for about fifteen hours that turns into a joke for about six and tedium for about 9.

The game isn't even half that long.

That's how long it took me.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I believe Brian said there are no aimed shots because it's assumed every attack on a zombie is aimed at its head.
http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,2821.0.html

Head shots and other aimed shots. I saw mention that it would be a ranged perk. Why? It makes perfect sense to aim for the head in melee as well. If you come up behind a zombie you have all the time you need to aim carefully and smash its brains out. It seems very strange that you wouldn't have that as a key feature for any attack type.
Every crit on a zombie is considered a headshot, because that’s what people are trying to hit. The “shoot the head” perk gives a higher chance to crit with firearms against zombies and only zombies. Otherwise, at a certain point combat turns into Fallout where everyone pumps up ranged and perception and does nothing but targeted headshots over and over.

I meant as a way to make it work to satisfy the purist (not commenting on the actual design).

 

[villain of the story]

There is no greater way to fuck up a zombie RPG than using a straight HP system for zombies with imbalanced weapons as though it's a fucking shoot' em up.

It is my understanding that the game isn't about fighting zombies but dealing with other groups and surviving. The zombies are merely a background.

Purely out of curiosity, what's wrong with a straight HP system for zombies? The "headshots must be fatal" thing? That's easy to replicate - large to hit penalties for head attacks, large critical multiplier (enough to kill 9/10) on a successful attack. If you are just blasting/hacking them to pieces (as most people would, I assume), then the HP system would work fine.

I'm not entirely opposed to HP but I'm opposed to imbalanced weapons divorced from a reasonable amount of authenticity. When a hammer deals significantly more damage than a machete, I question the purpose of the machete and the developer's understanding of it. You might as well make rounds from a shotgun bounce of off zombies' heads because hey, it's just a game! It's not the "headshots must be fatal" thing, either. Machete and hammer are different tools that serve different functions. You can do things with one that you can't do with the other. Sort of like a shotgun vs. a rifle. That doesn't translate to DMG:6 vs DMG:40. That's just stupid. Would you be okay if a shotgun dealt 10X amount of damage when the rifle did 1X? I wouldn't.

It also brings the inevitable comparison: crits on zombies are head shots by default. So now if zombies have fewer HPs than humans, what it takes to put a zombie out of commission will likely not be enough against a human. That might work out well and emphasize the human threat. It might not. But there's something troubling about putting the amount of effort you put into disposing of a zombie (at the head) not being enough against a human. Unless hows and whys of it are reflected into game mechanics and player choices during combat, it's way too abstracted away in favour of simplicity, which curiously brings us to the next point.

Then again, it took him how many years to finally see that AI controlled party is a no go?

I don't know why he changed it. Maybe he changed his mind (people are allowed to do that), maybe he saw all the complaints about AoD's combat, maybe too many people were bugging him. It's his game and his decision but there was nothing wrong with his original idea. A player controlled party is always more tactical, but tactical isn't what you should be going for in a proper zombie game where you lead a group of scared-shitless, panic-prone survivors most of whom have never been in a fight or held a gun until today. Playing them as a coordinated elite group of professional ass-kickers might be more fun for people who just want tactical combat regardless of the setting/story, but might feel a bit wrong for others.

I hope he changed it because he came around in his own mind, instead of succumbing to the pressure. "Making the game you want to make" and all.

Control over party doesn't suddenly make it a tactical elite squad game. One can always add behavioral conditions to factor into it. Take Close Combat. If you didn't coordinate your soldiers well and let them get stranded in crossfire, they could panic and do stupid shit or become completely demoralised and immobilised. In fact, that's the kind of thing Brian is now doing if I understood it right. Which is good. So it's about amount of control and conditional behaviours. Brian's original proposition was complete lack of control.

When you have yet to see a single game where it (autonomous party characters) works right and there are pages of discussions explaining why there's everything wrong with it, it's kind of blinded to say there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe if you were to achieve such a marvelous AI and put to shame all the others who have tried before you... Even then, it's silly on an abstractionist gamist level, the notion that the way to achieve authenticity of individuality and unpredictability is to take away control over characters. It points to a misconception of priorities. Games are a mix of abstractions that aim to achieve entertainment. Simulation itself could be a means to the entertainment but if there is a way to achieve character individuality with smart abstractions instead of simulations, not taking that way is a waste of resources and the end result will almost assuredly be inferior to the road not taken, unless achieving that single goal is of upmost priority.

I understand the appeal and I would honestly appreciate such a game where my party was capable of autonomy at a reasonable level, behave the way I would expect a real person to without being computer-stupid and all the genuine ways a person would crush my expectations and be genuinely stupid. For DoubleBear to achieve that with their resources when others with better resources have failed... would be a pipedream that leads to the sewage. Fact is there are better and easier ways to achieve all that. JA2 did it. Now that is a "tactical elite squad" game and I doubt anyone could question the individuality of the characters in the game, manifest in many parts of the game even with what little the game made of it.

I believe Brian said there are no aimed shots because it's assumed every attack on a zombie is aimed at its head.

I hope there is an option to just kick or push people/zombies away, without it factoring into crits and head shots. When face to face with a zombie, I might prefer to kick or push a zombie back to make myself room to escape.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'm not entirely opposed to HP but I'm opposed to imbalanced weapons divorced from a reasonable amount of authenticity. When a hammer deals significantly more damage than a machete...

Please tell me more about your field tests of hammers and machetes on zombies or humans

 

[curry]

I'm not entirely opposed to HP but I'm opposed to imbalanced weapons divorced from a reasonable amount of authenticity. When a hammer deals significantly more damage than a machete...

Please tell me more about your field tests of hammers and machetes on zombies or humans

there's a reason why third world country niggers prefer machetes over hammers when they go gang raping

 

[mrlutze]

I'm not entirely opposed to HP but I'm opposed to imbalanced weapons divorced from a reasonable amount of authenticity. When a hammer deals significantly more damage than a machete...

Please tell me more about your field tests of hammers and machetes on zombies or humans

there's a reason why third world country niggers prefer machetes over hammers when they go gang raping

Damn, I know it's pretty bad in third world countries, but gang raping a zombie? That's a real desperation.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

I'm not entirely opposed to HP but I'm opposed to imbalanced weapons divorced from a reasonable amount of authenticity. When a hammer deals significantly more damage than a machete...

Please tell me more about your field tests of hammers and machetes on zombies or humans

there's a reason why third world country niggers prefer machetes over hammers when they go gang raping

Damn, I know it's pretty bad in third world countries, but gang raping a zombie? That's a real desperation.

Zombie won't get pregnant (won't it?), plus it can be good to keep it around. If you were stuck in the house and zombie will walk around the house, it would scare off humans.
Sex and protection > mindfuck and nagging.
So, theoretically, zombies are better than women.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

How does a machete fare against bone? Machetes are really dangerous to humans because if we are poked with one we can bleed to death...but zombies don't care about that, so the blade can only "hurt" them by cutting off limbs. Depending on how hard it is to sever a limb with one, a big bone-crushing hammer could be more "damaging", at least in videogame zombie terms.

 

[Krraloth]

What is funny is the talk about damage authenticity in a game featuring zombies.
If it was man vs. man I would understand, but when you add something not real like a zombie to the equation you have to go off in the realm of abstraction.

Or have any of you killed a zombie with a machete and can say it's not depicted well enough in the demo?

 

[Lorica]

It's funny, but a game designer does need to be aware of how his audience's fantasy logic works. I think movies run into this problem--people have to fly around when they're shot or have terrible holes ripped in them (from entry wounds...), getting bumped on the head means sleep-like unconciousness for several hours not death/secondary blackout, someone who's strong also needs to have very low body fat, bombs make fireballs. Anybody with any experience in these areas knows that there's a bit of fudging. But there's still an audience sense of "it has to look or feel like this in order for me to believe it's authentic" even when alternate portrayals may be truer to life.

By extension, if designers want the game to be intuitive and not feel too gamey (+3 swords do more damage than +2 swords because it's an upgrade, dummy!) they have to get and exploit audience logic, even in fantasy settings. Creating weapon progression and specialization may be an important part of the game. In order to use those without it being too gamey, they should be distinguished from one another according to what the audience expects. It makes it easier to use (on the fly understanding of what's likely to be better or worse for a situation instead of poring over the stats) and it helps those players who claw their faces off if their immershun is broken in a zombie game, like those who need people to explode in bloody gibblets when fatally shot in an action movie.

 

[Krraloth]

While I agree in general with what you just wrote, I still think that if there has to be a sense of cohesive logic in the game design it has to be inherently consistent with the idea the dev is trying to implement.
By following the situation your presented by its logical conclusion (if a bit hyperbolic) you get to what we are having now, brain dead designed games because people want explodey and fountains of blood.

Unles I am unconsciously starwmanning of course.

 

[Lorica]

I don't mean that everything needs to be turned up to eleven. I think a lot of the over the top gore is more about the spectacle than about not having your audience go 'huh?' at the wrong moment. Maybe I could explain better?

For example, GTA3 had people's heads explode with foutains of blood... That was lulz and spectacle, I think. But most every shooter uses gore--there's visible blood spray in a cloud and the guy flinches when you land a good hit, there's a puff of dust or something when it hits his awesome body armour, and when he drops, he flies around so you know that he's dead. It's an efficient way of communicating what's going on and it satisfies the audience's fantasy logic, even if someone thinking about it critically wonders why each hit doesn't send the guy flying if the last one does and why body armour acts as some sort of kinetic energy dissipation field and so on and so on. This 'smart' use of gore makes sense to me. There are some extremes, but my sense from seeing games like, I dunno, FO3 and Deadspace?, is that they're looking for spectacle which is something that intentionally breaks even fantasy logic because it looks cool or satisfies in some other way. In other words, they're breaking this guideline for effect, not taking it to a logical extreme, at least as far as I see it.

Shit, wait, wasn't there a Dead Island thread like this once upon a time? Codex search engine to the rescue!









...

Anyway, the original point was about weapons. Why are chainsaws designed for cutting wood automatically understood to be more effective weapons in zombie movies and games than a machete, something frequently used to very deadly effect on real people all the time? It's fantasy logic. Chainsaws are scary. Did you see that movie(s)? They're classic zombie fighting weapons. Etc., etc.

You don't have to accept dummy reasoning of course. But it's something to manage and it's something that can be used to good effect. Chainsaws are just top-tier mêlée weapons and people know that without having to be told that shit.

 

[Yaar Podshipnik]

It's funny, but a game designer does need to be aware of how his audience's fantasy logic works. I think movies run into this problem--people have to fly around when they're shot or have terrible holes ripped in them (from entry wounds...), getting bumped on the head means sleep-like unconciousness for several hours not death/secondary blackout, someone who's strong also needs to have very low body fat, bombs make fireballs. Anybody with any experience in these areas knows that there's a bit of fudging. But there's still an audience sense of "it has to look or feel like this in order for me to believe it's authentic" even when alternate portrayals may be truer to life.

By extension, if designers want the game to be intuitive and not feel too gamey (+3 swords do more damage than +2 swords because it's an upgrade, dummy!) they have to get and exploit audience logic, even in fantasy settings. Creating weapon progression and specialization may be an important part of the game. In order to use those without it being too gamey, they should be distinguished from one another according to what the audience expects. It makes it easier to use (on the fly understanding of what's likely to be better or worse for a situation instead of poring over the stats) and it helps those players who claw their faces off if their immershun is broken in a zombie game, like those who need people to explode in bloody gibblets when fatally shot in an action movie.

By this logic you will need to make combat popamoley because that's what audiences expect. Such thinking only leads to decline. A much better approach is building the world and showing it to player in such manner that the mechanics real in that world are clear and obvious. While it may create an initial difficulty, it feels much more rewarding in the long term.

 

[Krraloth]

All right, I see your point about the spectacle and the gorey art direction when is in place in an established silly universe as GTA and Fallout (FO3 just placed the same kind of over the top gore already present in Fallout 1 and 2 but I my opinion without its soul so I'm gonna use the latter two in this uh argument) but the main point is that it's the devs that have established that kind of consistency in their design by giving a major emphasis to the over the top action.
If you have an universe where a gun bullet can make someone explode in very small bits and it works it's becose the focus of the design was to make it believable.
And that is what I am arguing here, even if there is a certain logic to the zombie genre it does not mean that you can not change the formula or switch it around.

Why are chainsaws designed for cutting wood automatically understood to be more effective weapons in zombie movies and games than a machete, something frequently used to very deadly effect on real people all the time? It's fantasy logic. Chainsaws are scary. Did you see that movie(s)? They're classic zombie fighting weapons. Etc., etc.

You don't have to accept dummy reasoning of course. But it's something to manage and it's something that can be used to good effect. Chainsaws are just top-tier mêlée weapons and people know that without having to be told that shit.

Chainsaws are different from a machete because the main point of the zombies is that they are for all intent and purposes a piece of wood.
They feel no pain and severing limbs is the only way to effectively impair their ability to threaten their target and a chainsaw has the main advantage to be self-powered so once you apply it steadily to a piece of wood it's gonna do the job on their own.
While cutting anything with a machete requires much more precision and force that a person has to apply to obtain the very same effect.
I don't think it's just for the scariness that is usually a top-tier weapon either, aside from the above there is also the "badass" factor.

 

[Lorica]

Yaar Podshipnik: I'm talking about presentation, not mechanics per se. Why should one weapon do more damage than another in mechanical terms? To afford a sense of progression, to counter balance another trade-off that encourages experiementation with strategies, and so forth. Why should one do more damage than another in the internal logic of the game?

Well, you could go a variety of ways. The most intuitive is to understand your audience's existing fantasy logic. You could create your own logic, as you say, but you need to coach your audience in understanding the different system. This is great if you have a great, exciting system. This is annoying if players need to re-learn a system of tertiary importance to your game--not a central mechanic, nothing to do with the themes or setting of the game, nothing interesting going on--like bog standard item roles in a non-combat focused game, for example. You could also try to go as realistic as possible, but it may be a waste of resources to simulate enough to make this convincing if your game doesn't take full advantage of the simulation. In either of the latter cases, you're still going to have to understand and react to the existing audience fantasy logic.

Krraloth: I think I covered my thoughts on messing with it, but just to reiterate: you need to understand that it's a tool and how it works before you subvert it. People will get angry if you just change it and they will post things like "Hammer better than machete, WTF IS THIS BULLSHIT?!" on message boards and write you off. Some may feel less emoshunal engagement unless you subvert these expectations correctly.

RE: Chainsaw. Yeah, but that idea of its usefulness just exists as fantasy logic. Chainsaws are unwieldy and probably pretty prone to gumming up with zombie shit. IRL people get trained to use chainsaws effectively and safely, whereas machetes are about as common as shovels. If a game effectively modeled the differences between them, cool. But most games just get down to "what deals more damage?" and they make the call based on fantasy logic.

 

[Krraloth]

Krraloth: I think I covered my thoughts on messing with it, but just to reiterate: you need to understand that it's a tool and how it works before you subvert it. People will get angry if you just change it and they will post things like "Hammer better than machete, WTF IS THIS BULLSHIT?!" on message boards and write you off. Some may feel less emoshunal engagement unless you subvert these expectations correctly.

RE: Chainsaw. Yeah, but that idea of its usefulness just exists as fantasy logic. Chainsaws are unwieldy and probably pretty prone to gumming up with zombie shit. IRL people get trained to use chainsaws effectively and safely, whereas machetes are about as common as shovels. If a game effectively modeled the differences between them, cool. But most games just get down to "what deals more damage?" and they make the call based on fantasy logic.

The main point of a Chainsaw is that it's the best tool for the job, and the job is cutting wood. Since the the easiest comparison one can make about zombies that feel no pain is a moving log, it follows that you do not cut logs with a machete, you just can't and that is not fantasy logic, if I grab a machete now and smash it on a firewood piece of medium thickness I might very well break it.
Btw IRL people get trained only on a job and not in all countries, plus I can very well go buy one now if I was inclined, they can surely be unwieldy but as I stated in probably a convoluted way, if it's presented in a cohesive way in the game world there is no reason why it could not be subverted as you said, unless, we are arguing something similar?

Edit: I fail at forum shit

 

[tuluse]

Anyway, the original point was about weapons. Why are chainsaws designed for cutting wood automatically understood to be more effective weapons in zombie movies and games than a machete, something frequently used to very deadly effect on real people all the time? It's fantasy logic. Chainsaws are scary. Did you see that movie(s)? They're classic zombie fighting weapons. Etc., etc.

You don't have to accept dummy reasoning of course. But it's something to manage and it's something that can be used to good effect. Chainsaws are just top-tier mêlée weapons and people know that without having to be told that shit.

You think chainsaws being better at cutting something up than a machete is "dummy reasoning"?

 

[Lorica]

The main point of a Chainsaw is that it's the best tool for the job, and the job is cutting wood. Since the the easiest comparison one can make about zombies that feel no pain is a moving log, it follows that you do not cut logs with a machete, you just can't and that is not fantasy logic, if I grab a machete now and smash it on a firewood piece of medium thickness I might very well break it.

But that's the problem. Why do zombies = wood? We're already in the realm of fantasy logic with zombies, so people have to understand underlying beliefs about how the world should work in a fantasy setting in order to arrive at 'chainsaws are better than machetes.'

Anyway, I don't think we're so much at odds (except over chainsaws vs. machetes ). It's something devs have to think about. Properly using or subverting fantasy logic can help games a lot. Failure to do so is a theme in a lot of these 'my immersion!' or 'devs are irrational' or 'game is arbitrary' criticisms that pop up, so understanding what's at play is part of understanding why some games are 'bad.'

You think chainsaws being better at cutting something up than a machete is "dummy reasoning"?

I meant dummy reasoning in general, but seeing as how people don't seem to get the concept of machete:


Next stop: Rwanda!

 

[Krraloth]

The main point of a Chainsaw is that it's the best tool for the job, and the job is cutting wood. Since the the easiest comparison one can make about zombies that feel no pain is a moving log, it follows that you do not cut logs with a machete, you just can't and that is not fantasy logic, if I grab a machete now and smash it on a firewood piece of medium thickness I might very well break it.

But that's the problem. Why do zombies = wood? We're already in the realm of fantasy logic with zombies, so people have to understand underlying beliefs about how the world should work in a fantasy setting in order to arrive at 'chainsaws are better than machetes.'

Anyway, I don't think we're so much at odds (except over chainsaws vs. machetes ). It's something devs have to think about. Properly using or subverting fantasy logic can help games a lot. Failure to do so is a theme in a lot of these 'my immersion!' or 'devs are irrational' or 'game is arbitrary' criticisms that pop up, so understanding what's at play is part of understanding why some games are 'bad.'

Maybe it's something *I* take for granted but chainsaw>machete on cutting things.
It's something I apply even before reaching to the point about what you are cutting.
Granted one could argue that in order to cut say, tropical vegetation (a thing I tried while on my trip and I fared poorly mainly because of the lack of cutting instruments) that is flexible, fibrous, humid and annoying there very best tool is a machete if you gather all the various vines, plants and shit in a nice twist, bend it around the blade and exert as much force as you can, what you see in movies is bullsht.

A human body is not what I just described, if I were to do a comparison it would be more like a sapling (which is a bitch to cut with a hand saw) because of the way both meat and fresh and flexible wood slow and stop the cutting motion. So in my mind a zombie might very well a piece of log.

 

[Yaar Podshipnik]

Lorica
"The most intuitive is to understand your audience's existing fantasy logic" - that's the issue right there. If you go by it, you are taking the easy way. Sure it works, but you aren't creating anything interesting. If executed well, is still entertaining. Personally, that's what I expect from PE combat/mechanis - familiar stuff executed well, with only minor unexpected things.
However, it's much more fun to create new logic (at least to me), subvert the comfort zone of the player - this is what I expect from TTON.

"Why should one do more damage than another in the internal logic of the game?" If you want talk mechanics then there are a lot of reasons you could use:
* better materials - I think AOD does this nicely. This is also consistent with real life - you could chop better with a steel axe than a bronze one, although either one can kill you dead.
* craftsmanship - things like balance and weight
* familiarity - someone who trained whole life with axe won't be as good with sword etc.
Anyway, the above is a bit of a digression.

"This is great if you have a great, exciting system." If your game doesn't have at least good system, then chances are it is shit. When I say "system" I mean how the combat, world, character interaction, etc. works together. Parts of that may be not as good as the combination of all of it, i.e. combat in PST is shitty but it is compensated by great narrative and interesting world, but it still must work and feel well together. With this definition of system, you could say that making a good game means making a good system. Hopefully we are talking about the same thing and not misunderstanding each other.

Going for hard realism is not a requirement, neither it is always desirable. Games are (at least to some degree) escapism, so 100% accuracy is not expected (unless it's a simulator like MS FS, Orbiter, etc.) Contradicting the real world by, for example, making things fall down in a curve instead of straight line, might be both something wrong, or great to do. It would be shit to do in a golf simulator set on Earth, but could be used as an indicator that you are on a space station that is creating artificial "gravity" by rotation.

As for chainsaw as a weapon - have you ever wielded one? It's damn inconvenient to swing around, not to mention it needs gas.

Human body is not a sapling-like thing. It varies in density a lot. It is one thing to chop off a hand, and another to chop off a leg or head. Muscles, tendons, skin, and bone fragments could jam a chainsaw since it's not designed to cut this kind of material. Look at the surgical saws - their structure is vastly different than a chainsaw. Surgeons also use different tools for cutting flesh and bone. Of course, some of the differences are due to not wanting to do too much damage, which, in case of zombie, is the exact opposite you want. I doubt that you could hack a zombie into pieces with a machete either. Maybe if it is really decomposed and all gooey (but how does it move then), but not in just a bit rotted state. A machete simply doesn't have enough energy in it (from swing) to chop off harder body parts - you may cut a hand, but would probably have difficulty with removing entire arm or leg. Cutting of the head would be slowed down by neck tendons and the backbone. There is a reason why weapons used for executions by beheading were heavy.

All this stuff can work differently in your game though. It would be actually fun to create zombies that are easily choppable and have this play a role in the game. If you do just that, and your zombie-source humans don't share this anatomy then you are making a crappy game because you now have it inconsistent.

Anyway, I hate zombies and like good discussions so do go on.

 

[Lorica]

It is the easy way out. It's logical because:
1) In any case, you have to deal with audience fantasy logic.
2) It can be efficient.
3) Unless there's a component of your game that's really interesting and different--all weapons and beings are light-based! people in this universe are really resistant to physical damage but the right kind of poison does wonders! psychic powers!--why waste the time? If you have a game that seems to be primarily about human interaction, rebuilding, survival, etc., those sound like the systems where you want something interesting and different going on. If you're explaining to people the specifics of why a hammer hits harder than a machete in this kind of game, you're probably off track or you should just release the damn thing already--weapon A is slow and hits hard, weapon B is fast and hits glancingly, call them what makes sense for your setting and move on.

When I said system, I guess I meant sub-system by your terminology. Does that clarify what I meant?

Yes, a chainsaws are impractical weapons brother in arms!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Someone should send Tim Cain pictures of peoples bellies torn open by shotgunfire. Way tto unrealistic to be able to endure multiple of these shots in Fallout. Quickly add a picture of someone getting hit by a minigun too, way too unrealistic this gaem!!

You mean like in the original Fallout as it was supposed to be?