Fallout What in the Hell could redeem a system like VATS?

[laclongquan]

At least in FNV they nerfed the hell out of it and if you use it in the wrong moment, raiders get to fill you with bullets while you can't do a thing

Yeah, they increased the damage you take in VATS to 75% from the 10% in Fallout 3 (jesus, who thought taking only 10% damage while in this mode was a good idea?) and enemies aren't slowed down as much as they are in Fallout 3. It makes using VATS in New Vegas much more of a bigger risk than in Fallout 3.

Apparently not too much of a risk because I 100%'d the game and literally never noticed that, lol.

Fallout3 maybe but you doesnt seem you can play Fallout New Vegas.. Because in FNV you can not 100% the game and never notice that enemies dont slow down during VATS time. Because tutorial does have a battle in VATS mode, at the very least, and that gecko can run up to your legs and bite off your dick. You dont even play it which is why you dont notice those suckers move fast.

 

[Lurker47]

but you doesnt seem you can play Fallout New Vegas.. Because in FNV you can not 100% the game and never notice that enemies dont slow down during VATS time. Because tutorial does have a battle in VATS mode, at the very least, and that gecko can run up to your legs and bite off your dick. You dont even play it which is why you dont notice those suckers move fast.

No, I meant New Vegas. I never noticed the 75% damage penalty, I mean.

 

[Edija]

In the old isometric Fallout games it was a viable strategy to add depth to the combat system and to allow you to maximize damage, or use certain strats like disabling the arms of your opponent in combat so he can't use this or that... in the newer Fallout games Bethesda's grasp on the whole idea and mechanics behind it can be summarized by the general idea that they think it's funny to shoot people in the balls.

 

[Arthandas]

What in the Hell could redeem a system like VATS?

TITS.

 

[Sigourn]

You are talking about different types of player skill here.

Building a good character, making sound tactical decisions, those are also player skills, yes. But only intellectual/mental ones, mostly coming from knowledge and understanding.

But what is usually implied when saying that "player skill reliance makes a game less of an RPG" is the physical skill. Twitch reflexes, keyboard & mouse (or, god forbid, controller) handling, etc.
Stuff the dumbest of idiots can pull off.

In other words: you are upset "the dumbest of idiots" are better than you at playing an RPG, so you call those games "worse RPGs". Really pathetic tbh.

I mean, thesheeep can you even argue against this? You've proven that there's no such thing as "no player skill" involved in RPGs, but the issue with physical skill clearly comes from the fact anyone can do it (false). Seems to me the issue is elitism and not exactly looking for a good RPG.

OT: The thing with V.A.T.S. in the classic games is that it was a realistic tradeoff between "shoot at thing" and "shoot at specific part of thing". So naturally this was less accurate, because by choosing to aim at a specific limb you require a higher accuracy to land a hit. There's no such tradeoff. Because of how shooting works in the games (applying RNG to modify how your attacks travel) there's no reason not to use V.A.T.S., other than wanting to play the game like a proper FPS and not some weird lovechild.

I personally stopped using V.A.T.S. altogether in New Vegas.

 

[thesheeep]

You are talking about different types of player skill here.

Building a good character, making sound tactical decisions, those are also player skills, yes. But only intellectual/mental ones, mostly coming from knowledge and understanding.

But what is usually implied when saying that "player skill reliance makes a game less of an RPG" is the physical skill. Twitch reflexes, keyboard & mouse (or, god forbid, controller) handling, etc.
Stuff the dumbest of idiots can pull off.

In other words: you are upset "the dumbest of idiots" are better than you at playing an RPG, so you call those games "worse RPGs". Really pathetic tbh.

I mean, thesheeep can you even argue against this? You've proven that there's no such thing as "no player skill" involved in RPGs, but the issue with physical skill clearly comes from the fact anyone can do it (false). Seems to me the issue is elitism and not exactly looking for a good RPG.

The first "problem" lies in there being a difference between physical skills - which, yes, anyone CAN do, barring obvious physical limitations - and mental skills, requiring thought, knowledge, planning, etc.
Obviously, a game requiring mental skills is inherently more (not that you couldn't have fun with some good ol' reflex shooting, just don't try and claim it is anything special).
I don't give a fuck if you call it elitism. As if that was something negative. I'm neither ashamed of being elite, nor do I put special emphasis on it. It is what it is.

The second problem lies in you not understanding that when a character's actions are determined by physical player skill, it is simply not an RPG any more.
The less physical skill required to determine the outcome of an action, the more of an RPG. Pretty simple.
Otherwise, almost every single game from Doom to Super Mario Land would be an RPG.

 

[Strange Fellow]

The original games didn't have VATS
/pedant

 

[RNGsus]

In the old isometric Fallout games it was a viable strategy to add depth to the combat system and to allow you to maximize damage, or use certain strats like disabling the arms of your opponent in combat so he can't use this or that... in the newer Fallout games Bethesda's grasp on the whole idea and mechanics behind it can be summarized by the general idea that they think it's funny to shoot people in the balls.

Did F4 actually include balls and eye shots? Wow. That's nice of them. What's the range of vats, can you use it looking through a scope at a pair of balls?

 

[Sigourn]

physical skills - which, yes, anyone CAN do, barring obvious physical limitations

This is a demonstrable lie.

I don't give a fuck if you call it elitism. As if that was something negative.

Considering we are talking about videogames, something 4-year olds play with, this is most definitely something you should be ashamed of. Saying "I'm really good at videogames" is not something that would make anyone's parents proud.

The second problem lies in you not understanding that when a character's actions are determined by physical player skill, it is simply not an RPG any more.
The less physical skill required to determine the outcome of an action, the more of an RPG. Pretty simple.

The less mental skills required to determine the outcome of an action, the more of an RPG as well. It's not difficult: if RPGs are about having a disconnection between the avatar and the player, then it stands to reason the less of an influence the player has on the avatar, the better. Roleplaying a moron is difficult if you are making the most informed and intelligent decisions during play. Unless you actively start LARPing a moron and doing things at random.

Otherwise, almost every single game from Doom to Super Mario Land would be an RPG.

Dark Souls is an RPG, and Doom isn't. Are you going to say Doom requires far more physical skill than Dark Souls does?

 

[thesheeep]

physical skills - which, yes, anyone CAN do, barring obvious physical limitations

This is a demonstrable lie.

How so?
I don't know a single person who would not be able to play Fallout 3-4 after a very short time of getting to know the controls.
That includes people who have not in their life held a controller or used keyboard & mouse to play games.

I know a hell of a lot of people who would not be capable of winning a mildly challenging fight in Fallout 2, not even if they tried it for weeks. Because they are idiots. Which isn't their fault, they were born that way.

I don't give a fuck if you call it elitism. As if that was something negative.

Considering we are talking about videogames, something 4-year olds play with, this is most definitely something you should be ashamed of. Saying "I'm really good at videogames" is not something that would make anyone's parents proud.

Show me the 4-year old capable of breezing through D:OS, Europa Universalis or other games that require some intellect and I'll show you a picture of a banana.
Also, "uhhh, video games are for kiiiids!". In 2018? Seriously? Did you sleep the last 20 years?

The second problem lies in you not understanding that when a character's actions are determined by physical player skill, it is simply not an RPG any more.
The less physical skill required to determine the outcome of an action, the more of an RPG. Pretty simple.

The less mental skills required to determine the outcome of an action, the more of an RPG as well. It's not difficult: if RPGs are about having a disconnection between the avatar and the player, then it stands to reason the less of an influence the player has on the avatar, the better.

Wrong, again.
The less direct influence the player has on the outcome of single actions the character is doing, the better. Obviously, the player's influence on the character itself is large due to character building and advancement.

Roleplaying a moron is difficult if you are making the most informed and intelligent decisions during play. Unless you actively start LARPing a moron and doing things at random.

Which is why only very few RPGs really let you play a moron.
It would require quite a lot of time to implement, for something only very few would ever attempt.

Dark Souls is an RPG, and Doom isn't. Are you going to say Doom requires far more physical skill than Dark Souls does?

Dark Souls is an action game with small splashes of RPG.
It requires little to no thought other than learning attack patterns. The rest is just reflex gaming.
That doesn't mean it's easy, obviously it isn't for a lot of people. But being hard has nothing to do with any genre definitions.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The OP asks why is VATs needed when you can just shoot in real time? The OP clearly underestimates Bethesda...

Sit around the fire, my friends, and let me tell you a story about Bethesda and its school of design.

You see, Bethesda bought the Fallout franchise at some point in the 2000s, and decided to make F3. Clearly turn based combat was out of the question, but simply creating a decent first person combat system would've been too obvious for Bethesda. So they thought they will create some sort of hybrid between turn based and real time, and in their talented way, managed to create a system that scratched neither of those itches. VATs doesn't really scratch the turn-based itch, since it offers nothing tactical worth mentioning. You just shoot the same way you would in real time, but in a turn-based fashion without any skill or challenge, just with extra cinematics. Yeah, you can shoot somebody in the foot or tail or whatever, but why, when a headshot will do like 5000% damage?

Of course, some normal people might choose not to use VATs then, since it offers nothing but a cheat mode for the normal real time combat. But THIS is where Bethesda's true brilliance shines through. You see, with the power of foresight that only Todd Howard could bring to the table, they SAW that no one would want to use their shitty VATs mode. But whereas another, less successful, company would've taken this as a sign to redesign the VATs, Bethesda solved the problem in a much more brilliant way. They ruined real time combat to force the player to use VATs. You see, in F3 and F:NV, enemies dodge side to side at ridiculous speeds, making it extremely hard to hit them in real time, especially at close range, almost forcing the player to resort to VATs in those situations. There is a mod on the Nexus to fix this bullshit, but after all, Bethesda can't control everything: https://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/37141/

So clearly the OP approached the issue from the wrong direction. Instead of asking what's the purpose of such a useless system as VATs, ask to what degree Bethesda would ruin the rest of the game to make it fit this flawed subsystem.

Bethesda ... Bethesda never changes.

 

[Sigourn]

How so?
I don't know a single person who would not be able to play Fallout 3-4 after a very short time of getting to know the controls.

Maybe do not pick some of the simplest action RPGs ever made? I gave a good example: Dark Souls. Not a game for everyone.

I know a hell of a lot of people who would not be capable of winning a mildly challenging fight in Fallout 2, not even if they tried it for weeks. Because they are idiots. Which isn't their fault, they were born that way.

The people who are not "capable" of winning such fights are the people who probably find Fallout 2 boring to begin with. In the end, it comes down to that: not whether they are smart enough, but whether they actually find these games enjoyable or not. We are capable of a lot of things. We just don't care about such things. Anyone could be a lawyer. Not everyone is interested in being a lawyer.

Show me the 4-year old capable of breezing through D:OS, Europa Universalis or other games that require some intellect and I'll show you a picture of a banana.

I don't know that many 4-year olds.

Also, "uhhh, video games are for kiiiids!". In 2018? Seriously? Did you sleep the last 20 years?

Videogames can (and are) played by kids. So yeah, saying "I'm really good at videogames" isn't anything to be proud of.

Wrong, again.

Except I'm not.

The less direct influence the player has on the outcome of single actions the character is doing, the better. Obviously, the player's influence on the character itself is large due to character building and advancement.

RPGs are not just "character building and advancement", though. In other words: you still have a huge amount of influence on how you play the game, using your mind. Which is no different than using your physical skill.

The less influence, the better. It goes for both mental and physical.

Dark Souls is an action game with small splashes of RPG.

It requires little to no thought other than learning attack patterns.

And Fallout 2 requires a lot of thought? Really? The classic Fallout games are some of the most casual cRPGs out there. It's no wonder they are also considered the best: a good cRPG has to strike a good balance between demanding and casual, and Fallout hit it (though it is closer to casual). What makes it good (the roleplaying) has nothing to do with the game's mechanics, which are fairly casual in nature (and thus Bethesda was able to easily transplant them into an FPS RPG: only turn-based combat was lost, which is something that JRPGs have been doing for decades already and you wouldn't exactly call most JRPGs anything but casual games for the console audience).

 

[Lurker47]

You see, in F3 and F:NV, enemies dodge side to side at ridiculous speeds, making it extremely hard to hit them in real time, especially at close range, almost forcing the player to resort to VATs in those situations. There is a mod on the Nexus to fix this bullshit, but after all, Bethesda can't control everything:

I always thought they were way too easy to hit. Human enemies never seemed to dodge at all.

 

[Doktor Best]

V.A.T.S. should be reworked into "bullet time" and call it a day, because that is as good as it gets while still making sense in an FPS.

Bullet time with highlighted bodyparts of enemies nearby and an interactive crosshair that shows in which direction bullets will stray.

 

[Strange Fellow]

The less direct influence the player has on the outcome of single actions the character is doing, the better.

"Walk 10 paces. Roll to determine direction."
"Critical failure. You try to walk in two directions at once and sustain a groin injury."

 

[Lurker47]

V.A.T.S. should be reworked into "bullet time" and call it a day, because that is as good as it gets while still making sense in an FPS.

Bullet time with highlighted bodyparts of enemies nearby and an interactive crosshair that shows in which direction bullets will stray.

Bullet time is boring.

 

[Sigourn]

Bullet time is boring.

Having the bullets behave like in Matrix can make bullet time pretty fun as you have to dodge time. But in most games bullet time literally means "slow time", so you still get shot in real time.

 

[Lurker47]

Bullet time is boring.

Having the bullets behave like in Matrix can make bullet time pretty fun as you have to dodge time. But in most games bullet time literally means "slow time", so you still get shot in real time.

It's still kind of a played out gimmick though. I like the idea of mimicking the special-super accurate shots and other RPG mechanics as a sort of trade-off.

 

[thesheeep]

The people who are not "capable" of winning such fights are the people who probably find Fallout 2 boring to begin with. In the end, it comes down to that: not whether they are smart enough, but whether they actually find these games enjoyable or not.

Just as sarcasm is a sign of intelligence (as has often been proven, and even researched by now, ffs), showing no interest in hobbies requiring any wit is a sign of a lack thereof.
No proof, mind you, but most signs do show the right direction.

We are capable of a lot of things. We just don't care about such things. Anyone could be a lawyer. Not everyone is interested in being a lawyer.

You are an incredible idiot if you really believe that everyone can be a lawyer.
Intelligence cannot be trained. You are born with it or you are not. Education alone can only take you as far as your intelligence allows.
Physical skills are easily trained, except for their highest forms (not everyone can become a martial arts master, for example).
Why do you think lawyers are highly paid, while the guy delivering your Amazon packages or picking them in the storages or constructing Ikea-furnitures isn't? Because one has such a boring job that he requires the compensation? And a bus driver could have just become a lawyer, if he just wanted?
How can a single person be so delusional? You really did earn that tag, didn't you?

Those who did not become a lawyer due to lack of interest might have become an engineer instead, or a doctor, or... but it is quite unlikely they went on to become a bouncer instead.

Also, "uhhh, video games are for kiiiids!". In 2018? Seriously? Did you sleep the last 20 years?

Videogames can (and are) played by kids. So yeah, saying "I'm really good at videogames" isn't anything to be proud of.

Not all video games are kids games, you can't just put them all in one pot and be done with the comparison.
You are grasping at the most ridiculous of straws and you know it.

And I'm surely proud of all of my good skills, even being good at video games. Though that is mostly as they play a bigger role in my life than for most.

In other words: you still have a huge amount of influence on how you play the game, using your mind. Which is no different than using your physical skill.

Yeaaahhhh, being able to make tactically sound decisions is no different than hitting a button at the right time.
Your whole argumentation is beyond retarded.
You ARE trolling me, aren't you? Damn. Well done!

It requires little to no thought other than learning attack patterns.

And Fallout 2 requires a lot of thought? Really?

No, it doesn't. And that is still a whole lot of thought more than any game like Dark Souls.

 

[Sigourn]

Just as sarcasm is a sign of intelligence (as has often been proven, and even researched by now, ffs), showing no interest in hobbies requiring any wit is a sign of a lack thereof.

Not gonna bother reading the rest of the shit you posted.

 

[RNGsus]

Does Metro have vats?

 

[Sigourn]

You are an incredible idiot if you really believe that everyone can be a lawyer.

And you are incredibly autistic if you think I literally meant to say "everyone".

Intelligence cannot be trained. You are born with it or you are not.

Same with physical talent. The most demanding videogames require talent as well. Oh, and intelligence CAN be trained and IS trained, from the moment you interact with others. Hence why a child who has had no contact with other human beings behaved like a wild animal as opposed to a normal, functioning member of society.

Why do you think lawyers are highly paid, while the guy delivering your Amazon packages or picking them in the storages or constructing Ikea-furnitures isn't?

Because one requires a lot of study and the other doesn't? It has nothing to do with how smart you are, but how demanding a job is. Especially because you will only get so far in life by being strong: there's nothing a strongman can do that a machine cannot do (and do better).

You've not only proven yourself a self-righteous retard, but completely oblivious at how the market works.

Those who did not become a lawyer due to lack of interest might have become an engineer instead, or a doctor, or... but it is quite unlikely they went on to become a bouncer instead.

Probably because becoming a bouncer or a bus driver is the last thing a person probably wants to be in their life. Which doesn't automatically translate to "everyone will want to be the best they possibly can".

 

[ItsChon]

Oh, and intelligence CAN be trained and IS trained

I'm not involved in this conversation, but just wanted to point out that this statement is demonstrably false. Pretty much 90% of a person's intelligence is genetic, and while they can be trained to get better at a certain activity if it's within their cognitive ability, you can't take someone with an IQ of 90 and teach them how to do a job that requires an IQ of 115.

Hence why a child who has had no contact with other human beings behaved like a wild animal as opposed to a normal, functioning member of society.

Way to cherry pick the most extreme example possible. I know people that moved to this country at the age of 15, and within two years of being here, already had a better grasp of the English language then people who have been here their entire life. I know people, and I'm one of them, that can fuck around in Math class and spend the whole time talking, not do any of the Homework, and do better then people that spend the entire time taking notes and studying. Some people are smarter than others.

Probably because becoming a bouncer or a bus driver is the last thing a person probably wants to be in their life. Which doesn't automatically translate to "everyone will want to be the best they possibly can".

That's the thing though. The higher a person's IQ, the lower chance that they'd want a job like this.

there's nothing a strongman can do that a machine cannot do (and do better).

Don't be a fucking mook. This idea that machines are going to replace everything is so fucking retarded, and clearly comes from people that don't have a proper understanding of just how difficult it is to both program and engineer something to fulfill some of these tasks. There are plenty of plyometric exercises that a machine would never be capable of.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Here's the answer to the TC question:

 

[Sigourn]

Way to cherry pick the most extreme example possible.

I'm sorry for resorting to logic.

Truth is, we can only exploit our full potential if we are nurtured properly. Notice how I didn't mention IQ at all. I doubt thesheep was referring to IQ when talking about "intelligence", especially in the context of this discussion (videogames).

That's the thing though. The higher a person's IQ, the lower chance that they'd want a job like this.

It's less about intelligence and more about how more/less lazy you are (or how much you care about yourself, to be frank).

Don't be a fucking mook. This idea that machines are going to replace everything is so fucking retarded, and clearly comes from people that don't have a proper understanding of just how difficult it is to both program and engineer something to fulfill some of these tasks. There are plenty of plyometric exercises that a machine would never be capable of.

How many of such plyometric exercises that require an absurdly strong men (Olympic tier) are currently used in the different industries?