Duck and Cover

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE post your thoughts and ideas about the map here. Even two sentences saying you liked/didn't like the map would be much appreciated!

mutter, mutter, mutter................

What?

Max-Violence wrote:What?

Well, he's either muttering and crying...or he's addressing his mother in German. Sometimes I wonder if JJ86 himself knows...

OTB

OnTheBounce wrote:Sometimes I wonder if JJ86 himself knows...

Ditto.

Too hard for ya, JJ86?

Max-Violence wrote:Too hard for ya, JJ86?

I'm getting there, but was trying to play "Insane" before I gave up that idea. Pretty good game overall. I am at the point where I'm collecting stuff before I take the APC back.

Jimmyjay86 wrote:I'm getting there, but was trying to play "Insane"

I, um, wouldn't reccommend that. In fact, I don't.

JJ86 wrote:I gave up that idea.

Good idea

68JJ wrote:Pretty good game overall.

Thanks!

86JJ wrote:I am at the point where I'm collecting stuff before I take the APC back.

Another good idea! You be on a roll today, mister!

Revenge 2 is so hot it burnout my computer!! Literally!!!!!

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:Revenge 2 is so hot it burnout my computer!! Literally!!!!!

Um, I'm just gonna say, "Thanks" and be done with it. Don't blame me 'cause your 'puter can't handle the good stuff!

Revenge 2 is a well designed visual feast. The details are lavish, and the eye just drinks in the tile work. The scripting is technically well implemented and the dialogue and item descriptions are witty and charming. As usual Max-Violence sets a new standard in insidious map design.

Max has stated that he wished to recreate some of the feeling of Thief and to that end he has succeeded.

The only trouble is the Thief games and Fallout games don't really go together IMHO. I have nothing against stealth missions, but the map is very restrictive in what you can and can't do. Kill someone before you should and you fail, walk into the wrong area and you fail, get spotted where you shouldn't be and you fail etc etc.

The beauty of Fallout and it's sequel is the freedom to play the game how you want, if you do something wrong you don't get booted out of the game, you either reload or live with the consequences of your actions, many of which you don't find out about until it's too late. Even then you still can for the most part find some way of continuing with the game.

*Spoilers*

But in Revenge 2 if you do something wrong you have no choice but to reload, admittably the FOT engine is limited when it comes to non-violent options but in the Fallout RPGs (which MV should go play!) if you got caught in Rich's house you'd have the option of talking, bribing or fighting your way out of your predicament, but in the mission if you get seen that's it game over.

After sneaking or fighting your way past the roaches and scorpion the mission becomes rather sedate, unless you get poisoned and then a frantic search for some antidote ensues. The middle part of the mission has your basic fetch and carry quests, once you get into the town it does feel a little like you are playing an RPG, my only problem is it's so easy to walk into the wrong area and get a fail message pop up. Really when you stumble into the entrance to the cells opposite Rich's house you should be warned off the first time, and then if you go back and get spotted, then you should get in trouble. It's quite annoying to have to reload just because I was exploring. There's some nice interaction with the bartender and a guard who needs bribing, but other than having to sneak into two areas to get the papers you require to get into the main base there's no real feeling of challenge, it all gets a bit too, and I hate to say it, easy as there's no real action other than the Old Man and his pets in the junkyard. Some more character interaction is really needed to fill out this part of the mission, I know it's not easy to do without a dialogue tree, but since there's so little risk in this part of the mission you start to feel like MV has lost his touch and getting soft hearted.

Once you have your papers and get into the base, stealing the first vehicle is a piece of cake, just as long as you keep your finger hovering over the 'w' key because those darn Reavers and townsfolk never learnt the green cross code. Once you try and steal your second vehicle all hell breaks loose and the mission totally changes. You need to get your vehicle safely hidden and then come back and start killing, because you're not going to be driving out the main gates any time soon. Perhaps the mission changes too much now. It's no longer a stealth mission with so many hostiles wandering about it's hard to stay undetected long, impossible when in a vehicle, and you can't let any vehicle be destroyed.

Perhaps with less automatic fails and more consequences to your actions I might of liked Revenge 2 more, as it is I never really got into the Thief games and I find that this mission is not one for me, but if you liked Thief and Thief2 I'm sure you'd love Revenge 2.

Thanks for the comments, Req.

As far as the lavish details that make the eye drink goes, I'll just say, "Thanks" and move on

As far as the rest of your comments go:

Max has stated that he wished to recreate some of the feeling of Thief and to that end he has succeeded.

The only trouble is the Thief games and Fallout games don't really go together IMHO. I have nothing against stealth missions, but the map is very restrictive in what you can and can't do. Kill someone before you should and you fail, walk into the wrong area and you fail, get spotted where you shouldn't be and you fail etc etc.

The character(s) you control are soliders in an army (and a small one at that). How many armies do you know of that let thier soldiers screw up during a mission? I agree that there coudl've been more flexibility -- warnings before a failure message pops up (btw did you read the entire briefing? There's quite a few warnings in the "notes" section).

As far as "the beauty of Fallout" goes: FOT isn't an RPG. Never has, never will (well, not like FO). I don't care much for getting 324 quests to do at the same time (like in Arcanum, which I'm told is like Fallout). Way too overwhelming for my tastes ("Which ones should I do? In what order? Etc.). I don't like wasting my time, and if I play a game for X number of hours on end, only to find I royally screwed up, that, to me, is a waste of time.

That said, I don't design my maps as any type of genre in particular (RPG, action, squad-based tactical combat, what have you). Sure, they might have RPG elements (i.e. conversations/interactions with NPCs), but that's to make the map seem more alive, rather than a simple "assault the base" mission. My map design philosophy: I get an idea, and I do what can to make that idea come to life. If the idea is to have the player control a squad to liberate a key town, there ain't gonna be much RPG in there. However, if the idea was to have the player as a POW who needs the help of fellow POWs to escape/get help (like in Revenge 3 whenever I manage to get it done sometime before the next U.S. President comes into office (plz not Bushy), there's going to be a fair bit of RPG in the map.

Thanks for the review, Req, but please don't compare my maps to FO any more. It's like comparing a racing game to a football game. Sure, they're both games, but that's it.

I could keep on going, but I think & hope I've made my point.

EDIT: Blasphemous spelling errors

Max-Violence wrote:The character(s) you control are soliders in an army (and a small one at that). How many armies do you know of that let thier soldiers screw up during a mission?

Most of them, as long as the overall mission objective is completed, there's an old maxim 'No plan survives contact with the enemy'. Sure you might get your ass chewed and maybe even demoted or have to face a court martial, on returning to your base, if you make too many mistakes and don't complete all objectives, but you're not likely to be recalled to base mid mission for making a mistake.

Max-Violence wrote:I agree that there coudl've been more flexibility -- warnings before a failure message pops up (btw did you read the entire briefing? There's quite a few warnings in the "notes" section).

Yes I did read the entire briefing, and it's one thing to be warned not to be caught snooping and another to just walk into an area and suddenly be dumped out of the game, especially as there's not much danger in the town and so I hadn't saved for quite a while.

Max-Violence wrote:As far as "the beauty of Fallout" goes: FOT isn't an RPG. Never has, never will (well, not like FO). I don't care much for getting 324 quests to do at the same time (like in Arcanum, which I'm told is like Fallout). Way too overwhelming for my tastes ("Which ones should I do? In what order? Etc.). I don't like wasting my time, and if I play a game for X number of hours on end, only to find I royally screwed up, that, to me, is a waste of time.

No FOT isn't an RPG but it is a Fallout game and I bought it, and probably so did most other people, because of that.

Max-Violence wrote:That said, I don't design my maps as any type of genre in particular (RPG, action, squad-based tactical combat, what have you). Sure, they might have RPG elements (i.e. conversations/interactions with NPCs), but that's to make the map seem more alive, rather than a simple "assault the base" mission. My map design philosophy: I get an idea, and I do what can to make that idea come to life. If the idea is to have the player control a squad to liberate a key town, there ain't gonna be much RPG in there. However, if the idea was to have the player as a POW who needs the help of fellow POWs to escape/get help (like in Revenge 3 whenever I manage to get it done sometime before the next U.S. President comes into office (plz not Bushy), there's going to be a fair bit of RPG in the map.

Character interaction is necessarily an RPG element, even a FPS like Half Life has people you can talk to, who either help you get past a choke point in the game or advance the plot by giving instructions or just by telling you some background info. Role-playing comes into it when you get a choice about how you are going to interact with them, or if their responses are hinged on your stats or previous choices in the game. Okay this is not something that can be done well in FOT, and is even harder to do in a standalone mission, but my point was Fallout has options and so does FOT, not every mission objective was compulsory. If you failed an objective (other than the main mission objective) in the default campaign mostly you'd just loose reputation points but you'd still be able to play on. Revenge 2 though is a very linear mission where everything that counts has to be done one way and one way only. That's what didn't appeal to me.

Max-Violence wrote:Thanks for the review, Req, but please don't compare my maps to FO any more. It's like comparing a racing game to a football game. Sure, they're both games, but that's it.

I could keep on going, but I think & hope I've made my point.

Unfortunately that's not real easy to do, I mean FOT is a Fallout spin-off, by playing it I'm automatically going to expect something of Fallout or even something of FOT especially when the map creator uses Fallout elements like Ghouls, or FOT elements like Reavers. After all if I were playing a map created for Jagged Alliance Unfinished Business I'd expect something of the Jagged Alliance games, not the Thief games or even the Fallout games unless of course the map creator had stated they were making a Thief/Fallout Total Conversion, or Partial Conversion.

If you make a map using a particular game world, it's going to be held up and compared to the game that world comes from whether you like it or not.

I haven't yet looked at or played Revenge 2 (sorry, MV), but I thought this was a fairly interesting discussion. Requiem For a Starfury and Max-Violence both bring up interesting issues. While Requiem has a good point that there's an expectation of some sort of Fallout-ish convention, sentiment, or other link when approaching an FOT map or campaign, and that a player may experience (and is certainly entitled to) some degree of disappointment if this expectation is not met, I tend to agree with Max-Violence that such content or lack thereof is not a good criteria upon which to judge a map in many cases. If the designer has stated that he is trying to recreate x element of Fallout, then certainly we can analyze whether or not he has succeeded. On the other hand, if the designer is trying to do other things and just happens to be using the FOT Toolset (because it's the only thing available, accessible, or desirable to him), then such analysis becomes extraneous to a discussion of the scenario. I don't believe Max-Violence can properly be criticized for failing to create a map that ignores many Fallout conventions when, in this case, he wasn't at all interested in doing so anyway (please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, MV) and just wanted to make something that he thought was fun.

Folks are always criticizing FOT for not being (among other things) "versatile," but I disagree and think quite a bit can be done with the FOT Toolset. For example being the corrupt and twisted sociopath that I am, I once made a nice little map (that I will never share with anyone under any circumstances, so don't bother asking) where two sorority gals attend a large fraternity party with the objective of engaging in as much drunkenness, drug use, and casual sex as possible. The map was set up using a simple point system based on experience points (e.g. one point for drinking a beer, minus two hundred points for getting an STD, etc). If certain "defeat" conditions were avoided (e.g. "You're pregnant! You're forced to quit school in disgrace") the gal with the most points at the end of a certain time period "won." Although few people seem to like the conversation system I devised for FOT (at least not enough to use it), it was more than adequate for this (mostly) non-violent pure RPG-style map. While this map certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with Fallout (or, for that matter, any common sense of decency and morality), it was enjoyable to play for a while, and I think that's all that really matters when assessing any map.

While the example I've given is perhaps rather extreme (in more than one way), my point is that the FOT Toolset can be used to create a wide variety of games, not all of which would appeal to all or even many folks. I think, however, that this is a strength of the engine, and that if someone is trying to do something that doesn't have anything to do with Fallout but, by the necessity of using what's available in the toolset is forced to implement some things that share a casual relation to the Fallout world (having worn-out buildings and ghouls, for example), they should be encouraged rather than persuaded to stick to Fallout stuff. In fact quite a few of the maps out there (those from the guy who did the Evil Dead stuff, Kashluk's RAID map, etc) have nothing to do with Fallout, but that doesn't make them any less entertaining to me. I've always been more interested war-gaming than RPGs myself, and although I've spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing FO and FO2, I'd actually rather see more FOT maps that deal strictly with tactical combat situations than with FO source material or general RPG-ness, as long such maps are well-done and fun to play.

On the other hand, it's entirely another matter to say that regardless of the theme of an adventure, what actually takes place therein is not well implemented (in whole or in part), or that the map has design flaws that interfere with its fun factor. Furthermore, there's nothing at all wrong with saying "While I can appreciate what you've done here, it just didn't float my boat." I'll have to abstain from that issue as it relates to Revenge 2, since unfortunately as I said I haven't had a chance to look at the map yet. However, in the confines of an SP map that is not part of a larger campaign, I think in general that it may often be legitimate to have fairly severe (i.e. end game) consequences if the mission objectives aren't strictly followed, since accomplishing such objectives is the sole purpose of the gameplay and there's little reason to have extraneous possibilities since the player-characters have no context for existing outside of the narrowly-defined mission presented in the map. Although I myself have always tried to avoid this situation in my own maps, and agree with Requiem that it's fun to have lots of stuff to do that's fairly irrelevant to the completion of the map objectives (in fact, almost everything that can happen in my Quagmire map is irrelevant to the actual "mission" presented in that map), I can understand that there are reasons (not enough hobby time, lack of interest in RPG elements, etc) that not every mapper would always strive to include such elements in a scenario. Particularly if one is focusing narrowly on a tactical theme, such elements aren't necessary. I've always wanted (but unfortunately don't have any time to make) a narrowly focused "campaign" where something like a SWAT team moves through a bunch of strictly tactical exercises (mission 1: rescue some hostages, mission 2: take out the deranged sniper at a sporting event, etc) that would have almost no RPG elements. I think such a tactical simulation would be fun to play (if well-done, of course), and that a lack of RPG elements would not necessarily detract from such a campaign.

Anyway, I'm always interested in discussing these themes of design philosophy for their own sake, and am interested in what everyone else has to think about the issues I've raised.


Endocore

endocore wrote:I tend to agree with Max-Violence that such content or lack thereof is not a good criteria upon which to judge a map in many cases. If the designer has stated that he is trying to recreate x element of Fallout, then certainly we can analyze whether or not he has succeeded. On the other hand, if the designer is trying to do other things and just happens to be using the FOT Toolset (because it's the only thing available, accessible, or desirable to him), then such analysis becomes extraneous to a discussion of the scenario. I don't believe Max-Violence can properly be criticized for failing to create a map that ignores many Fallout conventions when, in this case, he wasn't at all interested in doing so anyway (please correct me if I'm wrong, of course, MV) and just wanted to make something that he thought was fun.

I have to disagree with you there, unless the designer states that they're trying to do something different, ie making a partial conversion, then we have to by default assume that they have made some attempt to make a Fallout game. I only knew that MV was trying to recreate some of the Thief style from talking to him about the map while playtesting it, nothing is said (that I could see) in the read me or speech files about it. I think when you set a mission in the Fallout world, even if it's the FOT version most people are going to play it looking for some more of Fallout. If you're trying to create something different then I think you should mention that fact in the read me, so people know what to expect.

endocore wrote:Folks are always criticizing FOT for not being (among other things) "versatile," but I disagree and think quite a bit can be done with the FOT Toolset. For example being the corrupt and twisted sociopath that I am, I once made a nice little map (that I will never share with anyone under any circumstances, so don't bother asking) where two sorority gals attend a large fraternity party with the objective of engaging in as much drunkenness, drug use, and casual sex as possible. The map was set up using a simple point system based on experience points (e.g. one point for drinking a beer, minus two hundred points for getting an STD, etc). If certain "defeat" conditions were avoided (e.g. "You're pregnant! You're forced to quit school in disgrace") the gal with the most points at the end of a certain time period "won." Although few people seem to like the conversation system I devised for FOT (at least not enough to use it), it was more than adequate for this (mostly) non-violent pure RPG-style map. While this map certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with Fallout (or, for that matter, any common sense of decency and morality), it was enjoyable to play for a while, and I think that's all that really matters when assessing any map. While the example I've given is perhaps rather extreme (in more than one way), my point is that the FOT Toolset can be used to create a wide variety of games, not all of which would appeal to all or even many folks. I think, however, that this is a strength of the engine, and that if someone is trying to do something that doesn't have anything to do with Fallout but, by the necessity of using what's available in the toolset is forced to implement some things that share a casual relation to the Fallout world (having worn-out buildings and ghouls, for example), they should be encouraged rather than persuaded to stick to Fallout stuff. In fact quite a few of the maps out there (those from the guy who did the Evil Dead stuff, Kashluk's RAID map, etc) have nothing to do with Fallout, but that doesn't make them any less entertaining to me. I've always been more interested war-gaming than RPGs myself, and although I've spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing FO and FO2, I'd actually rather see more FOT maps that deal strictly with tactical combat situations than with FO source material or general RPG-ness, as long such maps are well-done and fun to play.

Sounds an interesting map, but more importantly it sounds like it's got plenty of options good or bad. I've got nothing against using the FOT engine to make other style games, I'm working on a partial conversion at the moment myself, but as I said unless you take it out of the Fallout universe entirely, then I think that the designer should expect to be compared to the Fallout games. I don't much like FOT but I do like the engine and editor, it's the only reason that FOT is still installed on my HD.

endocore wrote:On the other hand, it's entirely another matter to say that regardless of the theme of an adventure, what actually takes place therein is not well implemented (in whole or in part), or that the map has design flaws that interfere with its fun factor. Furthermore, there's nothing at all wrong with saying "While I can appreciate what you've done here, it just didn't float my boat." I'll have to abstain from that issue as it relates to Revenge 2, since unfortunately as I said I haven't had a chance to look at the map yet. However, in the confines of an SP map that is not part of a larger campaign, I think in general that it may often be legitimate to have fairly severe (i.e. end game) consequences if the mission objectives aren't strictly followed, since accomplishing such objectives is the sole purpose of the gameplay and there's little reason to have extraneous possibilities since the player-characters have no context for existing outside of the narrowly-defined mission presented in the map. Although I myself have always tried to avoid this situation in my own maps, and agree with Requiem that it's fun to have lots of stuff to do that's fairly irrelevant to the completion of the map objectives (in fact, almost everything that can happen in my Quagmire map is irrelevant to the actual "mission" presented in that map), I can understand that there are reasons (not enough hobby time, lack of interest in RPG elements, etc) that not every mapper would always strive to include such elements in a scenario. Particularly if one is focusing narrowly on a tactical theme, such elements aren't necessary. I've always wanted (but unfortunately don't have any time to make) a narrowly focused "campaign" where something like a SWAT team moves through a bunch of strictly tactical exercises (mission 1: rescue some hostages, mission 2: take out the deranged sniper at a sporting event, etc) that would have almost no RPG elements. I think such a tactical simulation would be fun to play (if well-done, of course), and that a lack of RPG elements would not necessarily detract from such a campaign.

Anyway, I'm always interested in discussing these themes of design philosophy for their own sake, and am interested in what everyone else has to think about the issues I've raised.


Endocore

Okay I concentrated to much on that overall it wasn't the type of mission I like to play, but I think there's a difference between have objectives that have to be completed, and objectives that have to be completed in a certain way and only that way, and that having consequences other than just end mission can make the game more interesting as well as harder.


*Spoilers*

For instance, you're not allowed to kill any civilians, I'm working on a town map and I have a similar restriction but rather than ending the game I've set it up so that I have 2 main teams the player and hostiles, and the other 6 teams are neutral, there are triggers that count how many are alive on the neutral teams and if you kill someone these will reset the team allignment index so that everyone on that team becomes neutral towards you again depending where you did the deed. The thing is I've set up the player indexes so that people in different buildings on in the street are on different neutral teams. If you kill someone in a crowded room or on the street everyone will turn hostile and the game will probably end. But if you kill someone who's alone in a building then you might get away with it. If the body is discovered patrols of the gang that control the town will be activated, and you'll have to avoid these as they want to see your papers, which you won't have at that time. If you get stopped by the patrol the game will end as they are heavily armed and you won't have a chance at defeating them (at that time). Likewise in the rich family house if you're spotted or an open door is spotted the occupant shouts out an alarm and the game ends. I haven't set up anything as complex about doors being open but there is a bit where you have to sneak past someone, I've set them to squealer and put in an alarm. If they see you they'll run for the alarm and you have to kill them because if it sounds the gang will come running and the game will end. If you can sneak through the area without killing the guy you get a nice big fat experience award.

Also some of the restrictions just made the mission very linear and easy to play. Once you fail once and realise what you did wrong then you just don't do that again. After you've gotten into the town it becomes very easy until you attempt to steal the second vehicle. You might as well only need to steal the one document, the one in the rich family's house. Out of all 4 it's the hardest to get, only because you need to get the ring pulls to bribe the guard to get into the house. Once in the house you have to stay undetected, which is not hard as the main character has a wickedly high sneak skill, once you realise it's not your sneak skill that counts but shutting the doors behind you as you go then even getting this document becomes easy. Collecting the Ring Pulls is very easy, by the time you've been to the market you've got nearly enough, and you can enter most buildings and search for more without hinderance. Perhaps if more ringpulls were needed, and some zones set up around the containers they were in so that if some of the roving patrols see you near a container they'll go hostile.

The hardest part for me is stealing the second vehicle, because as soon as you do all the Reavers turn hostile and this slows my computer right down in CBT, making it hard to switch weapons etc. There's a bit in the briefing about not letting anyone see you steal the 2nd vehicle and sound an alarm otherwise it will be impossible to get out the main gate. Since everyone is hostile to you now, it's impossible to get to the main gate anyway until you've hidden the vehicle and started taking out the Reavers. The whole Thief/stealth style goes out of the window here I think, since you can't leave your vehicle where it is (otherwise it'll be attacked) and you can't sneak while in a vehicle some combat becomes inevitable. Perhaps rather than turning all the Reavers hostile at that point, wait to you get to the main gate, the turn the gate guards hostile, a few roving squealers (in the base) and the police hostile. Then you'd have to get the vehicle out of the town and then get back into the base. If the alarm sounds then rather than ending the game automaticaly have a Reaver Patrol turn hostile for every alarm that goes off. I think this would allow more options without ruining what MV had in mind, rather than just ending the game when you do something wrong it can make the game easier or harder and adds replayabity.

To sum it all up:

1. Endocore has a wee bit too much time on his hands
2. I'm 95% sure I'm going to re-tool the map to allow for some extra flexibility and make it a bit easier (perhaps make a third PC available... guess who!)
3. I don't like to say stuff like, "I'm going to do X in my next map." I just get an idea and run with it. I don't recall saying I'm recreating the Thief universe with any of my maps, although I do remember saying that fans of the Thief games will like most of 'em (I prefer sneaking & covert ops to full-on combat any day of the week and twice on Sundays).

   Req wrote:For instance, you're not allowed to kill any civilians, I'm working on a town map and I have a similar restriction but rather than ending the game I've set it up so that I have 2 main teams the player and hostiles, and the other 6 teams are neutral, there are triggers that count how many are alive on the neutral teams and if you kill someone these will reset the team allignment index so that everyone on that team becomes neutral towards you again depending where you did the deed. The thing is I've set up the player indexes so that people in different buildings on in the street are on different neutral teams. If you kill someone in a crowded room or on the street everyone will turn hostile and the game will probably end. But if you kill someone who's alone in a building then you might get away with it. If the body is discovered patrols of the gang that control the town will be activated, and you'll have to avoid these as they want to see your papers, which you won't have at that time. If you get stopped by the patrol the game will end as they are heavily armed and you won't have a chance at defeating them (at that time). Likewise in the rich family house if you're spotted or an open door is spotted the occupant shouts out an alarm and the game ends. I haven't set up anything as complex about doors being open but there is a bit where you have to sneak past someone, I've set them to squealer and put in an alarm. If they see you they'll run for the alarm and you have to kill them because if it sounds the gang will come running and the game will end. If you can sneak through the area without killing the guy you get a nice big fat experience award.

4. I can't goddamn wait to play that map.