Duck and Cover

So you're saying the FO2 editor is easier to work with than FOT's editor?

Hmm.. I would consider switching to FO2 but I think the FOT engine is far more action oriented. The old FO games just seem too slow-paced..

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:So you're saying the FO2 editor is easier to work with than FOT's editor?

Hmm.. I would consider switching to FO2 but I think the FOT engine is far more action oriented. The old FO games just seem too slow-paced..

It's certainly easier to lay floor tiles with the FO2 Mapper, walls are a bit more complicated as they are all over the place, but unless you know your way around the scripts and a compiler it's probably easier overall to make maps in FOT.

Depends really if you want to make an RPG adventure or a Tactical Combat campaign.

Also depends on your definition of RPG

1. Taking the role of a character/s and playing it/them out to the end

2. Being your own character

Number 1 works better in FOT, since you can only control one character in the Fallout games, who typically does not have any character other than the one you give him.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:Also depends on your definition of RPG

1. Taking the role of a character/s and playing it/them out to the end

2. Being your own character

Number 1 works better in FOT, since you can only control one character in the Fallout games, who typically does not have any character other than the one you give him.

I was defining it in terms of being able to do more than just shoot people. Combat is not the sum total of RPGs. With the Fallout2 Mapper, you can at least script alternate non-violent solutions to quests, as well as give more rewards than just experience or Karma and since there is a dialogue tree, have a level of interaction beyond click, click click and shoot.

But the main point of games is to kill stuff :)

Me. I would rather have a one-way dialogue path, some good combat, and/or puzzles involved and a satisfactory well thought out conclusion than have a multipath system with 2 or more conclusions that suck due to time limits.

I guess im just saying that if you do one conclusion you'll put a lot more effort into the path to that conclusion, than if you did two or more.

Its like a maze. Do you want the fun of going through one of two mazes, or going through one maze and THEN having to do the other as well?

But multiple paths DO encourage a player to replay the game multiple times. But not to the point that they'll enjoy doing mandatory mundane starting tasks over (see baldur's gate 2 prison).

Hidden goodies and secrets. That's what I always enjoy finding :)

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:But the main point of games is to kill stuff

Me. I would rather have a one-way dialogue path, some good combat, and/or puzzles involved and a satisfactory well thought out conclusion than have a multipath system with 2 or more conclusions that suck due to time limits.

I guess im just saying that if you do one conclusion you'll put a lot more effort into the path to that conclusion, than if you did two or more.

Its like a maze. Do you want the fun of going through one of two mazes, or going through one maze and THEN having to do the other as well?

But multiple paths DO encourage a player to replay the game multiple times. But not to the point that they'll enjoy doing mandatory mundane starting tasks over (see baldur's gate 2 prison).

Hidden goodies and secrets. That's what I always enjoy finding

I strongly disagree with that, even in FOT there were times like Preoria that you were better off not killing everything. It's what makes the Fallout RPGs so great, that they are more than just running around killing things. Last time I played through FO2 I played a highly intelligent charmer, other than 3 of the ants in the temple of trials (that I couldn't run away from or sneak past) I managed to avoid killing anyone or anything until I reached the tanker. Only then, when my sneak failed as I was in the middle of the aliens and floaters did I have no option but to kill all. Got all my followers wiped out as well . The game was just as fun and perhaps even more interesting. You can even avoid killing Frank Horrigan yourself at the end of the game. Same with Fallout, you don't have to kill anyone in the Military Base, nor do you have to kill the Master.

I've not played BG2, I got so bored by the time I reached Baldur's Gate in the first game that I quit playing and uninstalled it, tried again when BG2 came out, only managed to reach the first set of mines before chucking it into the bin. Having multiple paths is good for replayability but more importantly it adds depth to a game, to have the option to do more than go in guns blazing is so important, otherwise you're just playing a FPS from a 2D isometric top down view without any challenge testing of your hand to eye co-ordination. Sure having a narrow starting path, with tasks you can't avoid like the temple of trials is bad for replayability but there are very few games that just dump you in the game world and let you do as you please. Even the act of character creation can get repetitive after a while.

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote: I strongly disagree with that, even in FOT there were times like Preoria that you were better off not killing everything. It's what makes the Fallout RPGs so great, that they are more than just running around killing things.

Yes of course. I never said you should just go around killing stuff with no story or ill effects for killing characters that are integral to the story. That would make it like Deus Ex (ever killed as many civs as possible? Little to no repercussions).

I always like a good blend of story, puzzle solving, and encounters. I don't see any point to having a fighting engine in a game if you're not going to use it at least some. Even if there are ways around doing so 90% of the time.

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:
Last time I played through FO2 I played a highly intelligent charmer, other than 3 of the ants in the temple of trials (that I couldn't run away from or sneak past) I managed to avoid killing anyone or anything until I reached the tanker. Only then, when my sneak failed as I was in the middle of the aliens and floaters did I have no option but to kill all. Got all my followers wiped out as well :( . The game was just as fun and perhaps even more interesting. You can even avoid killing Frank Horrigan yourself at the end of the game. Same with Fallout, you don't have to kill anyone in the Military Base, nor do you have to kill the Master.

As I have said previously, there are 3 ways to kill the master, all of which could be scripted into FOT.

But really, which is more fun? A way to totally bypass fighting the end boss or having a challenging ultimate finale with him/her/it? Not that there are any challenging bosses in any of the FO games. In most RPG's its just a matter of being stronger. A key, a trick to beating them, and yet having to fight them at the same time. Now THAT is more challenging.

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:
I've not played BG2, I got so bored by the time I reached Baldur's Gate in the first game that I quit playing and uninstalled it, tried again when BG2 came out, only managed to reach the first set of mines before chucking it into the bin.

BG1 was so non-linear that they did not put enough detail into the main path to make it interesting. As you might have noticed, the game is quite boring and intimidating with all the areas to explore, and yet little to keep it interesting with multiple areas looking so much alike.

BG2 was more polished and had multiple linear quests that you didn't have to do, but they were more polished due to the game's lack of wide outdoor areas. It let them focus on the more important aspects of the game and create interesting sub-quests. BG2 is VERY good in comparison to the original, but you'll want to slug through the first if you want those books for a strong character ;-)

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote: Having multiple paths is good for replayability but more importantly it adds depth to a game, to have the option to do more than go in guns blazing is so important, otherwise you're just playing a FPS from a 2D isometric top down view without any challenge testing of your hand to eye co-ordination. Sure having a narrow starting path, with tasks you can't avoid like the temple of trials is bad for replayability but there are very few games that just dump you in the game world and let you do as you please. Even the act of character creation can get repetitive after a while.

Baldur's Gate had many paths you could go. Many options to choose different party members. You could set out on whichever path you chose (fromt he start at least). You sortof contradict yourself here by saying you don't like Baldur's Gate. Fallout had some boring areas that you have to do as well, regardless of your character design.

I think we're ultimately talking about different aspects that we like/dislike about linear/non-linear aspects. There is good and bad in them both.

Here is a GOOD example of LINEARITY
You HAVE to fight someone, but its always an interesting/cool fight sequence. Kindof like a Castlevania and/or Mega Man boss that you enjoy fighting because you know what to do but it is still challenging.

Here is a BAD example of LINEARITY
You have to go through a cave. The cave is the same every time. You know where the monsters are, they're easy to kill, and you have to do several mundane tasks there to proceed with the game. Basically like the mines in Baldur's Gate 1.

Here is a GOOD example of Non-Linearity
You're going through this cave. You've done it before but you have the option of going through an above tunnel, sneaking past the guards, killing them, finding a secret door around the guards, or even finding a hidden cache of bombs and blowing them up.

Here is a BAD example of Non-Linearity
You've got about 5 to 10 ways you can choose to go, but all of them are alike. There is a little treasure down each path but you're more likely to continue on than fool with mundane passageways.

Hmm.. not that good of an example

OK you're given several choices. You can free the slaves, blow up the furnace, kill the slaves, kill the boss, etc.. But so much time was taken to give rewards for doing/not doing different things that the outcome is ultimately the same, the whole place blows up and you're still the big hero. Little to no repercussions to you later for doing anything bad or good in this case.

With a little more effort the above situation could be lovingly crafted such that you get a WONDERFUL outcome for doing everything right, and have later repercussions depending on what you did right/wrong.

There is also the problem of a "make your own character" guy/girl lacking his/her own personality, whereas a scripted "you are THIS person" guy/girl could interact far more with the chosen storyline, having their own personality and sometimes getting the player into trouble where they otherwise might not have. YOU know how the game works and know what it expects and will reward you accordingly. The character, however, does not have this knowledge. For example, it is more realistic to have a greedy character choose to kill an NPC and take his money or a good character help him in return for the reward/experience (which he may, in the end, turn down) than it would be to let the player choose (the player would obviously help him out and accept the reward money, getting good exp and gold).

I do not know how to fully explain it, but there are benefits of both the liniear and non-linear worlds. When the benefits are combined you have a masterpiece, sorta like a Zelda game.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:As I have said previously, there are 3 ways to kill the master, all of which could be scripted into FOT.

Yes the endings could be reproduced but not all the events that lead up to them, which is half the fun of the game.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:But really, which is more fun? A way to totally bypass fighting the end boss or having a challenging ultimate finale with him/her/it? Not that there are any challenging bosses in any of the FO games. In most RPG's its just a matter of being stronger. A key, a trick to beating them, and yet having to fight them at the same time. Now THAT is more challenging.

I've never liked how end bosses are done, in any type of game, at least with Fallout talking the Master into killing himself relied somewhat on your actions through out the game, not just on how many points you put into what skill, or what weapon you have the most ammo for.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:BG1 was so non-linear that they did not put enough detail into the main path to make it interesting. As you might have noticed, the game is quite boring and intimidating with all the areas to explore, and yet little to keep it interesting with multiple areas looking so much alike.

BG2 was more polished and had multiple linear quests that you didn't have to do, but they were more polished due to the game's lack of wide outdoor areas. It let them focus on the more important aspects of the game and create interesting sub-quests. BG2 is VERY good in comparison to the original, but you'll want to slug through the first if you want those books for a strong character

I'll take you word on that, I seriously doubt I'll ever buy BG2 (even on budget) and I certainly wont be buying another copy of BG1.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:Baldur's Gate had many paths you could go. Many options to choose different party members. You could set out on whichever path you chose (fromt he start at least). You sortof contradict yourself here by saying you don't like Baldur's Gate. Fallout had some boring areas that you have to do as well, regardless of your character design.

No I don't, all I said was that I found the game too boring to play, not why I found it boring. I didn't like the game (partly because I bought it after playing Planscape Torment and was hoping for a repeat of that experience) because I couldn't get into the setting, I didn't like the combat and I found the NPCs insipid. Yes Fallout had some boring areas but I can't think of any game where theres no level/location that I'd rather not play again.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:I think we're ultimately talking about different aspects that we like/dislike about linear/non-linear aspects. There is good and bad in them both.

I thought we were talking about what capabilities each engine has. With the FO2 mapper you have more freedom to make almost whatever sort of adventure you want. With the FOT editor you can still make your adventure, though you might not be able to implement everything you want to do and the scripting is probably easier especially if you only planning a combat orientated game.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:Here is a GOOD example of LINEARITY
You HAVE to fight someone, but its always an interesting/cool fight sequence. Kindof like a Castlevania and/or Mega Man boss that you enjoy fighting because you know what to do but it is still challenging.

Here is a BAD example of LINEARITY
You have to go through a cave. The cave is the same every time. You know where the monsters are, they're easy to kill, and you have to do several mundane tasks there to proceed with the game. Basically like the mines in Baldur's Gate 1.

Here is a GOOD example of Non-Linearity
You're going through this cave. You've done it before but you have the option of going through an above tunnel, sneaking past the guards, killing them, finding a secret door around the guards, or even finding a hidden cache of bombs and blowing them up.

Here is a BAD example of Non-Linearity
You've got about 5 to 10 ways you can choose to go, but all of them are alike. There is a little treasure down each path but you're more likely to continue on than fool with mundane passageways.

Hmm.. not that good of an example

OK you're given several choices. You can free the slaves, blow up the furnace, kill the slaves, kill the boss, etc.. But so much time was taken to give rewards for doing/not doing different things that the outcome is ultimately the same, the whole place blows up and you're still the big hero. Little to no repercussions to you latewr for doing anything bad or good in this case.

I agree that having to do the same thing each time with no randomness is bad, and that if you are going to give multipaths they should all be properly implemented. The context though depends on the type of game, if I'm playing a FPS then I don't mind HAVING to fight someone, but in an RPG I want the option not to have to fight. Not necessarily by having a peaceful dialogue option or some gimmick that'll help me defeat the opponent, but by having the option to avoid the fight in the first place, either by not taking a quest or by not going to the area where the fight will be.

If you have to go through a cave, like the one at the beginning of Fallout, then you should have the option of running/sneaking away from the ants, it shouldn't be compulsary to kill them. Or in Fallout 2 in Redding you have to get an excavator chip for one of the mine owners, but there's two chips available but you can only give one to complete the quest.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:With a little more effort the above situation could be lovingly crafted such that you get a WONDERFUL outcome for doing everything right, and have later repercussions depending on what you did right/wrong.

There is also the problem of a "make your own character" guy/girl lacking his/her own personality, whereas a scripted "you are THIS person" guy/girl could interact far more with the chosen storyline, having their own personality and sometimes getting the player into trouble where they otherwise might not have. YOU know how the game works and know what it expects and will reward you accordingly. The character, however, does not have this knowledge. For example, it is more realistic to have a greedy character choose to kill an NPC and take his money or a good character help him in return for the reward/experience (which he may, in the end, turn down) than it would be to let the player choose (the player would obviously help him out and accept the reward money, getting good exp and gold).

I do not know how to fully explain it, but there are benefits of both the liniear and non-linear worlds. When the benefits are combined you have a masterpiece, sorta like a Zelda game.

Never played Zelda or the other 2 games you've mentioned, I'm not sure what you're getting at about the character, if the game says you're so and so and you're a good person and then it shouldn't give you an option to step out of character, but if the decision about what type of person the character is, is left up to the player they might want to kill the npc it's called playing evil .

Ok back to the original FOT/FO arguement :)

I feel that the FO engine is more limited because of a few restrictions.

1. No multi-level enivoronments (you can forget about climbing up the side of a building)

2. No mines or ways to disarm mines (IE ground traps). There is also no practical use for traps in the FO games due to a lack of patrolling enemies.

3. Control is limited to one character (IE allowing little to no strategic maneavers in combat). Combat can be slow and tedious.

4. No moving vehicles :-/

So im going to stick with FOT. Despite its lack of a dialogue tree, there are things I can do with FOT that I just can't see doing in FO.

There are so many tricked up ways to improve combat in FOT. Maybe I can make a demo sometime and show everyone what I mean.

I also probably do not need to mention that the FO editor is user-made and likely has complicated, hard to learn, scripting scripting tools.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:I also probably do not need to mention that the FO editor is user-made and likely has complicated, hard to learn, scripting scripting tools.

The FO mapper is abit harder to use than the FOt editor, but it isnt user created. Black Isle released their own editor you see.

And on what editor to use, I think its completly up to what the induvidual mapper is looking for.

I hadn't realized that the editor was from BIS. Thanks for the info.

It might be OK for certain adventures, while FOT is better for others.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:Ok back to the original FOT/FO arguement

I feel that the FO engine is more limited because of a few restrictions.

Only in terms of tactical combat, but then FOT isn't exactly a brilliant tactical combat game either.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:1. No multi-level enivoronments (you can forget about climbing up the side of a building)

You could put enemies on roof tops though, I don't know if you could still target them or vice versa, and you definately wouldn't be able to go loot their bodies. Though in FOT climbing stairs and ladders wasn't very well implemented, and is something that should really be kept to a minimum when designing maps.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:2. No mines or ways to disarm mines (IE ground traps). There is also no practical use for traps in the FO games due to a lack of patrolling enemies.

Are you forgeting the floor traps in the temple of trials, the raider's base, the Sierra Army Depot (plus you've got a laser trip mine there), Navarro etc etc. Sure the player won't be able to lay traps, but how often did you actually do so in FOT? You can always set up a script to turn on some sort of floor trap. And Critters could probably be scripted to mimic some sort of patrol route.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:3. Control is limited to one character (IE allowing little to no strategic maneavers in combat). Combat can be slow and tedious..

Again different type of game, but you can give orders before combat, and I wouldn't say the combat is any more tedious than FOT. I hardly play CTB anymore, the more I do, the more I realise how bad it is.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:4. No moving vehicles :-/

Well the vehicles in FOT don't exactly add anything to the game, except an extra layer of armour. Without enemy vehicles or more effective anti-vehicle weaponry they are just a nice piece of visual fluff and should be saved for the 14yr old clannies in MP.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:So im going to stick with FOT. Despite its lack of a dialogue tree, there are things I can do with FOT that I just can't see doing in FO.

No disagreement there.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:There are so many tricked up ways to improve combat in FOT. Maybe I can make a demo sometime and show everyone what I mean.

Well the combat in FOT couldn't get any worse, the only way to go is up.

[TBC]-PaladinHeart wrote:It might be OK for certain adventures, while FOT is better for others.

Which is what I said to begin with. There's one thing the FO2 mapper has over FOT, there's a lot more art for destroyable scenary, especially doors.

Note to mods, perhaps you can split this conversation off into it's own topic, it doesn't really belong in this sticky.

Well im all out of arguements. The only things that I have left to be said would be done with my RPG. Speaking of which, I should get back to working on it. And I should force myself. No amount of waiting is going to help me get reinterested :-)