Fallout Polygons Charlie Hall got stuck in Fallout.

[valcik]

I probably spent an hour trying to find Ian's character sheet

After an hour I found Ian's character is sheeit.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

When you get stuck in Fallout, you know that you are much something greater than an idiot.

Presumably that'd explain your tag.

 

[felipepepe]

People don't like being locked out of content no matter how hard the game's logic has to bend backwards to entertain them (I still remember that post about a player being butthurt over getting a QUEST FAILED: HELPING THE POWDER GANGERS prompt when he shot their leader in the back of the head. How come the game didn't give him a warning he couldn't do quests for a dead character? How inconsiderate). Restricts roleplaying freedom.

Remember the "Save the Baroness" mission in Blackguards? It was a fairly easy battle, but she would be killed unless you reached her in 4 turns - something supposed to be an optional challenge.

Insane butthurt followed, with countless steam threads on how the game was too punishing because the optional objective was hard.

 

[Helton]

Dozens of hours?

 

[Ninjerk]

Dozens of hours?

Maybe he ran far too many caravan runs?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

That's just the last door he couldn't get through. He didn't say anything about previous obstacles.

Spoiler

After 67 minutes, I realized I couldn't get back into the Vault and went the other way. Why would they put a door next to you if you aren't supposed to get in? Very poor design.

 

[Wintermute]

When you get stuck in Fallout, you know that you are much something greater than an idiot.

I did get stuck in my first playthrough of Fallout. One of the Blades decided to loiter in a doorway and would not move. He was blocking access to Razor, and there was no push command until Fallout 2, so I ragequit. I was an idiot though as I did not think to super stimpack him to death or plant a grenade. There's always another way in Fallout.

 

[ColCol]

Man, I beat fallout as a child, and I was a pretty stupid child.

 

[Jick Magger]

Man, I beat fallout as a child, and I was a pretty stupid child.

I misread that as "My father beat me as a child, and I was a pretty stupid child."

I couldn't stop laughing.

 

[Modron]

That's just the last door he couldn't get through. He didn't say anything about previous obstacles.

Spoiler

After 67 minutes, I realized I couldn't get back into the Vault and went the other way. Why would they put a door next to you if you aren't supposed to get in? Very poor design.

67 minutes? Someone needs to makes a new montage of
for this.

 

[crufty]

there is only one solution

 

[Sceptic]

Dozens of hours?

I was just about to say this. I think the entire runtime my first time though, blind of course, wasn't longer than 12h. It's a very short game.

 

[GarfunkeL]

So did he admit to lying? Where's the rage?

 

[deuxhero]

That's just the last door he couldn't get through. He didn't say anything about previous obstacles.

Spoiler

After 67 minutes, I realized I couldn't get back into the Vault and went the other way. Why would they put a door next to you if you aren't supposed to get in? Very poor design.

Well it was actually poor design given how quests in Vault 13 seemed to be intended for ~shady sand's level even though there was no reason to return and find they even existed. The skill check to get access to the armory also seems like it should have been at the start of the game.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Did anybody read the article, or just read the thread title?

What the article is about is how the makers of Pillars of Eternity wanted to reduce or eliminate "bad builds" or having to plan character development in advance. I understand the "bad builds" part. For example, when I played Fallout, I put a lot of points into Survival. The problem with that's you can easily train Survival by buying books, but other skills aren't as easy to train. I was wasting points. This problem is also similar to how some skills in games are throwaways. Since htey have so little vaue in the game, points spent are wasted.

The part in the article about min/maxing and character development confuses me somewhat. The makers of PoE said they wanted development to be organic. This means they don't want the numbers to get in the way. I agree with that sentiment, but I usually don't have trouble with t, even in a game like Fallout. When I play games it's usually organic anyway. When I played Fallout, I didn't know putting points into survival was bad. I didn't know I made a bad build until after I had completed the game. If they're trying to eliminate the process of having to think about what skills or stats you train then I kind of disagre with that, insofar as my experience is concerned. I only agree insofar as playing organiclly would prevent me from actually playing or completing a game.

The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea. It's like the mercenaries which they added in Everquest (an mmo). The only trouble I have with it is it seems umm hokey? I'd rather have to search for NPCs to hire who have the skillst I"m looing for. Or maybe just make it so the game can be completed with a less than perfect build. By that I mean just because I see a locked door doesn't mean I have to lockpick it. It can be a side attraction (which I might see if I replay).

I think the meaning of the article is a good one and has a purpose. The focus on the reference the article writer uses to make his point should not take away from the point. If one just devotes more than a few seconds to loking.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Welcome to 2012 or whenever the fuck it was when Sawyer first talked about this. There is nothing new in the article, hence people happily focusing on yet another retarded games "journalist" proving himself to be a clueless hack.

 

[Keldryn]

I had a full party of paladins in my first fallout play through.

What's a paladin?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I had a full party of paladins in my first fallout play through.

What's a paladin?

A HD Irenaeus.

 

[felipepepe]

The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea.

Having played PoE, I cannot imagine the level of autism required for someone to proceed this way. Every locked door has a key nearby and traps are just "eh", Sawyer himself admitted that they are there more to set the mood than to actually challenge players.

You say backtraking dozens of areas and creating a new character just to surpass one locked door is "allowing players to deal with the problem". But in Fallout you could just carry some dynamite and blow up the door, as Mr. Game Journo would know had he any understanding of the game. In short, this "revolution" is nothing new, people are just buying into it because it was written in the press release and journos don't know any better.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Did anybody read the article, or just read the thread title?

I did, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to waste their time on an opinion article that opens with "so I got stuck in Fallout and had to restart the game because immersion".

 

[deuxhero]

I had a full party of paladins in my first fallout play through.

What's a paladin?

Paladins are in charge of all security and outside activities. I remember tradin' with the Hub, goin' on scouting missions for the Elders. Ah man, those ware a good times.

 

[Daemongar]

This problem is also similar to how some skills in games are throwaways. Since htey have so little vaue in the game, points spent are wasted.

So what if you "waste points?" I don't understand the problem. You play the game, and your idea of what is useful or not useful evolves as you play. That sounds more "organic" than every skill being useful, and every problem being solvable by every build. Shouldn't the usefulness of the skill be dependent on the player style of play, or doesn't that enter into the decision?

When I played Fallout, I didn't know putting points into survival was bad. I didn't know I made a bad build until after I had completed the game.

:D

The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea. It's like the mercenaries which they added in Everquest (an mmo). The only trouble I have with it is it seems umm hokey? I'd rather have to search for NPCs to hire who have the skillst I"m looing for. Or maybe just make it so the game can be completed with a less than perfect build. By that I mean just because I see a locked door doesn't mean I have to lockpick it. It can be a side attraction (which I might see if I replay).

It would be more organic if they just took all doors out. I mean, if they have a lockpick skill, that means at some point one could fail, and that would = bad build. And if I had to travel to town to add the NPC, who would automatically open the door, why should I have to do that? What does that add?

I think the meaning of the article is a good one and has a purpose. The focus on the reference the article writer uses to make his point should not take away from the point. If one just devotes more than a few seconds to loking.

I'm pretty sure if I read an article about anything and realized the author made up the supporting info, I'd be a little, I don't know, suspicious. Why should I trust the authors point, after he obviously lied to me? Aren't you curious about why the author lied to you? What does he stand to gain by doing so?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Did anybody read the article, or just read the thread title?

What the article is about is how the makers of Pillars of Eternity wanted to reduce or eliminate "bad builds" or having to plan character development in advance. I understand the "bad builds" part. For example, when I played Fallout, I put a lot of points into Survival. The problem with that's you can easily train Survival by buying books, but other skills aren't as easy to train. I was wasting points. This problem is also similar to how some skills in games are throwaways. Since htey have so little vaue in the game, points spent are wasted.

What is most bizarre is that despite them feeling need to make obtaining outdoorsman skill possible without skill points there aren't any serious penalties for having a low outdoorsman skill.
At least Fallout 2 penalized lack of interest in that skill by throwing unavoidable deadly encounters at the PC.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

(...)

The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea. It's like the mercenaries which they added in Everquest (an mmo). The only trouble I have with it is it seems umm hokey? I'd rather have to search for NPCs to hire who have the skillst I"m looing for. Or maybe just make it so the game can be completed with a less than perfect build. By that I mean just because I see a locked door doesn't mean I have to lockpick it. It can be a side attraction (which I might see if I replay).

It would be more organic if they just took all doors out. I mean, if they have a lockpick skill, that means at some point one could fail, and that would = bad build. And if I had to travel to town to add the NPC, who would automatically open the door, why should I have to do that? What does that add?

Well having to go to an inn (to hire/pay a rogue and then return) to open a locked door means being side tracked from your adventure. But the same thing is true in Fallout if you don't have a crowbar or dynamite or lockpicks: you have to get them somewhere. The difference is in Fallout you might not have enough strength or mechanics skill to open the door, whereas in the example given for PoE you'll always be able to (if you can pay the small fee). However, someone else in this thread said traps and locked doors are so trivial in PoE you never have to go to an inn to create a rogue for them, so being side tracked isn't a problem. The ability to hire a class you create at the inn is just a backup means to solve problems (while allowing high customization).

I think the meaning of the article is a good one and has a purpose. The focus on the reference the article writer uses to make his point should not take away from the point. If one just devotes more than a few seconds to loking.

I'm pretty sure if I read an article about anything and realized the author made up the supporting info, I'd be a little, I don't know, suspicious. Why should I trust the authors point, after he obviously lied to me? Aren't you curious about why the author lied to you? What does he stand to gain by doing so?

I'm not saying I agree with the article. I'm saying a lot of palyers out there might agree with it, therefore, it has a point. I think themost important point, if it has any, is that bad builds can be a problem for some players, even if they don't know it. If a game can eliminate bad builds without ruinig the game, why not do it? And the other point about wanting to make the experience more organic, so players don't ahve tgo min-max their stats/skills, is a good one too.

I did feel some disdain for the whole concept. How simple and dumb do they want to make games? In the past, I've had some trouble in games, but it's not usually this type of problem. I don't expect every probem I encounter in a game to immediatley be solvable. Just because I see a locked door doesn't mean I have to unlock it. If every locked door and trap in a game can be game ending then maybe it might be trouble, but if that were true probably every player would have the capacity to deal with it.

I have hit dead ends in gamesbefore which frustrated me. But it usually doesn't have to do wih stats/skills. Usually it has to do with some weird choice (on the makers part) to advance a quest or goal. So I'd fumble for a few hours (or more!) trying to figure out what the game makers wants me to do. Whehn I finally figure it out, I want to strangle them.

And I wnat to add something else. I think a lot of adventure games would otherwise be called RPGs if it weren't for the stats/skills and deeper worlds more frequently found in RPGs. Adventure games are usually much easier to play. I speculate some RPGs are just trying to be like adventure games while still being RPGs because they desire that "easier to play" trait.

 

[Average Manatee]

When I played Fallout, I didn't know putting points into survival was bad. I didn't know I made a bad build until after I had completed the game.

:D

I lolled.

The skill books in Fallout were dumb though. Having a specific set of skills for which you can convert money (nigh-infinite) -> skill points (limited) was silly. Should have been limited to one use per game, or being a carried item that gives an effect, or whatever.

Still, these idiots who think that they have to 100% complete everything in the game with the perfect powergamed build are disgustingly retarded. Ohnoes, I blew up the Radscorpion cave while it still had 12 9mm HP bullets in it and now I can't get them, game is broken to let you do that and lose loot. *kills self*