well i never heard anything about realism... but a lot of people like the sound of hardcoe mode...... and dont wine about how other people say stuff..... just ignore

Balance.


Realistic is only good to a degree..

Ontopic- if I wanted realism id go outside

Offtopic- screw you and your sig OP. >.<

That's actually my point. The concept of experience isn't unrealistic, but the way most RPGs handle it has very little basis in real world logic. If one wanted to create a realistic experience system, they would do best to use a system similar to what the Elder Scrolls uses as a base, if you use a skill, you can get better at it, on the other hand, you don't get better at a skill by using a different one. Yet in Fallout, and really, most RPGs I know of, use an experience system where the player has one generic "experience" bar that, after rising by enough points, allows the character to gain a level, at which point you can put points into your various skills, and which skills you can increase is not at all effected by what skills you used while gaining this experience, you could very easily have gained a level from killing enemies yet use the skill points awarded upon gaining a level to increase your skill in sneaking. This makes very little sense if you go by realistic logic, but it's worked since the time of D&D for games.

Honestly, I'd go as far as to say RPGs NEED to be unrealistic to an extent, because an RPG allows the player to develop a character, and allows that character to become more competent through gaining experience, and the game needs to actually show that the experience has made your character stronger in some way, otherwise you get something like Oblivion where gaining levels carries little satisfaction because you don't actually become more powerful compared to your enemies. Now the need for unrealism comes in the fact that, if the gain tries to hard to be realistic, a low level character could still defeat a high level one with one lucky shot, because in real life, no matter how good you are with a gun, a bullet can still kill you. While it would be realistic if a level one character could kill a level twnety one in one hit with a lucky head shot, it wouldn't exactly contribute to the point of an RPG, because it would make the differences in experience between the two characters become quite meaningless, as you can see, what I'm talking about applies primarily in combat, though to a lesser extent, it might apply in other places too, in real life, even a master of stealth is going to have difficulty staying hidden in broad daylight without cover, but if you developed a character who focuses on stealth, you probably wouldn't want to be forced to give up your character's usual methods to survive. In a stealth-based game, the missions can be designed to make stealth a possibility, but an RPG which aims to make all playstyles equally feasible can not always afford to pay so much attention to a particular playstyle. Sometimes, RPGs need to put realistic logic aside in order to ensure that certain character types don't become impossible to play consistently. I would also argue that an RPG does not need to put as much detail into realistically simulating different aspects of it like combat and sneaking and such as games that focus on them because the genre doesn't really focus on them. A first person shooter can put much more focus on realistically simulating combat with guns, because it focuses on that, and doesn't have the burden of needing to account for the different playstyles and character types the player might choose to play. Of course, not all games will actually do this, but that's beside the point.



I can only dissagree with that opinion, I've played some games that pay little heed to realistic physics, but are still quite enjoyable, and would actually become less fun if they tried too hard to be realistic, as I've said, it depends on the game. As far as Fallout is concerned, some level of realism is concerned, I mean, I don't want to be able to jump thirty meters into the air or fall safely from a ten story building, I wouldn't really object if the physics of in-game objects at least tried to be realistic, and so on, but loosing any ammunition left in a magazine if I reload before firing off all bullets in it or needing to bathe regularly or suffer a charisma pentalty would just be annoying and unnecessary.

All in all, though, if I wanted full realism in every area, I'd take a walk.

I can, however, say that I too am fine with unrealistic settings, as long as they have, like I said, consistency. Its unrealistic that Fallout's setting goes by '50s science fiction SCIENCE! rather than real world science, but as long as it follows it consistently, I can live with it.

I'm gonna pay my brother to stand there and punch me every time i get hit in game. So I can actually feel It. Another plus is he already smells like drunken post apocalyptic wasteland settler. Now should I give him an airsoft, or a paintball gun for when i get shot in game?(I can't afford an anti material rifle at the moment.) Engaging all the senses baby!

There definitely needs to be a balance between realism, game mechanics, gameplay, and the capabilities of the software. I think Fallout 3 struck a nice balance there, but I also see how New Vegas can improve on that.

I agree with what you have to say. I'd say throwing away ammo from a clip you didn't use isn't very realistic anyway. I'd just keep the half used clip and just put it back where I drew the old one.

And that's exactly the point, isn't it? You play to escape reality, others play to jump into a new reality. Everyone says 'If I wanted realism I would go outside.'
Are you suggesting I set off a few nukes around the world so I can live Fallout? Obviously I can't or won't do this, and I don't truly want to, because I like my life. But I want to live another life in another world, to me this is the essence of roleplaying. But again, I'm not going to go shoot up a store because I feel like roleplaying a gangster. And I can't go bet a million dollars at poker, as much as I might want to roleplay a gambler.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that the two different 'religions' play these games for different reasons; some play to escape their lives, others play to become someone else.

I personally am basically waiting for a simulator machine to truly put me in the wasteland, but until technology advances enough, I'm stuck with my computer. I would welcome nearly any form of realism, but I do realize that the animations and mechanics and concepts would use up (waste) valuable time and resources. Certain things though, I would not want. I do not want to have to urinate and defecate, but I certainly do want to have to eat and drink. I want bullets to do a realistic amount of damage and have realistic effects. I would want a month of game-time to pass while I'm in the hospital from a leg wound, but I don't want to sit there and watch my character sit there. I want realistic reload times and animations, because I think they would add to the game. But like I said, I am aware that things like that are a large drain on resources, especially because so very few gamers want that level of realism.

Sorry if I rambled, it's late.

well for some aspects, but most rpg's are fantasy/midevil and their isn't there much realistic there, oblivion had fairies, ogres, unicorns, fallout has supermutants, deathclaws etc, the energy weapons, thats the great thing about video games, they are kinda like a painting, you can make the world any way you want, it doens't have to be realistic, realism is boring most of the time, everyday life isn't all that exciting for most people, i have no problem with all the unrealistic stuff.

Games, films, and fiction are rarely 100% realistic, and that's fine. However, some degree of realism helps to immerse me in a game...especially an RPG. I'm on board for somewhere at or above the amount of realism that allows me to perceive the game world as something somewhat believable within the context of the fictional setting...and somewhere short of having it become cumbersome and therefore un-fun.

How's that for ambiguous? You really have to inspect elements on a case-by-case basis and ask yourself, "Is this too silly to be believable? Is this too cumbersome to be fun?" Somewhere in-between is where you want to be, IMO. If you can design your game to include a ton of realistic detail without overwhelming the player with too much "reality," then by all means, go nuts. It's not easy to do, though.


Sure, things don't have to be realistic, but they should be believable within the context of the setting. When you play a fantasy RPG you're accepting certain things as "reality," like the existence of ogres and magic. That doesn't mean it's a free-for-all, though. Once you've established your setting's reality you need to stick to it or else the setting loses its integrity.

Pretty much what you said nerd. I like a mix of both. When I played Ballad of Gay Tony, I loved the extreme action flick over glam of it, but in games like Fallout, I like a median of realism, easter eggs aside. It's fun to see things explainable, but I dont need some obnoxious [censored] because some person things video games mean 'Reality Sim'

Exactly. When you play a GTA game you expect a certain lack of realism. The ridiculous, over-the-top action is part of the theme of the series. Despite the science fiction and humor that are part of the Fallout universe there are also aspects of survival and a slightly more serious take on combat. I'd expect a Fallout game to show realism somewhere in between a GTA game and, say, a hardcoe war sim.

Exactly. I was introduced to Fallout via F3, and I find them all (save the one that shan't be named) great games. However, I fear people think Fallout will and should be a hardcoe fps combat war sim, instead of the RPG Fallout should be. When you turn combat down to very easy, I find 3 is very immersive roleplay wise. But I'm scared New Vegas is more combat based than rp based, All we see is combat and how 'real' the guns are. I get they are aiming for the RP AND FPS crowd in this dumbed down market. But I think they just might have focused on these realistic combat crowds unhappy Fallout isnt meeting their simple minded standards.

Whoops. I ranted on to another subject. My base point is I think people are focusing on the wrong things with Fallout xD

I wouldn't mind if there was more realism in hardcoe mode, I was a bit disappointed when I found out there was no extra given/taken damage included in it.

im ok with hardcoe and im ok with realism but theres a point that you need to realise. its no longer fun...

i meen i love the hardcoe thing were you need to eat food and it would be great if cooking it had benefits but if this game had over the top realism... im sure my fire would atract enemys... and even then there are things some ppl would love to see thid but sure the problem is the vast majority doesnt want a game were repairing your armor involves breaking a pistol and playing find waldo, but with a spring and a screw or even removing to rust from your armor... isnt that exciting!?.

but there are somethings that need to be more beliveable such as getting injured. it shouldnt be stimpack your healed! mabey have a temp item like an advance pain resistance wich would block the pain and act like a stem pack in fallout 3 but wouldnt keep you alive but keep you fine until the fighting is over so then you can take a stempack. but even here we need to make sure we dont over do it. realism = one shot your dead (most likely) or if you some how survive have fun falling on the ground and bleeding to death OR even better getting jabed in the eye by a pool cue. thats right folks you play the rest of the game with half the screen black

I see that argument a lot, and I really disagree with it for two main reasons. First, no matter what medium you're using, the audience is only willing to suspend disbelief a limited number of times depending on your genre. That's something creators generally have to respect if they want the work taken seriously. Secondly, things still need to make sense in the context of the world. Things don't need to be true to life realistic, but they need to be plausible in the portrayed setting, which is often the type of realism people are advocating.


Having only played Oblivion (and 15 minutes of Morrowind), the system was very counter-intuitive. Picking the skills you used the most resulted in a very weak character, and if you got to a high level, you started to get more and more outclassed by the auto-leveled enemies. It rewarded picking skills you seldom used, or could at least control, for your primary skills.


The move to a shooter isn't a terrible one. There's no reason why a game can't be fun from both perspectives. Some of my favorite titles include the first Fallout, Arcanum, and Final Fantasy Tactics, but I've still had plenty of fun with the shooter elements of FO3, and I haven't actually seen anyone advocate "war sim" to the exclusion of RPG elements. In fact, that sounds a lot like Anchorage, which was not exactly well received for that very reason (and several others). I'm more concerned with the feelings and emotions the world space evokes than I am with whether I resolve combat as a floating eye in the sky or looking out from my character's power helmet. If the switch to first person aids the developers in creating the desired atmosphere, then more power to them.

I'm fully expecting NV to be better from a roleplaying perspective than FO3, because honestly a lot of the writing was garbage.

I also don't really understand why people feel some sort of superiority derived from playing RPGs. Sure, there are a bunch of doucher frat boys that love them some Halo and CoD, but there's nothing intrinsic to RPGs that make them a more noble pursuit than other genres. It's something I've been seeing more and more of all over the place, and while I may not agree with the trending of most games to incorporate more and more shooter elements, I don't think combat mechanics are "dumbing down" this current generation of video games.

If its realistic then there would be no wasteland or New Vegas or any Fallout.

Addolorisi- Honestly I enjoyed Operation Anchorage. I like to have a memory blackout and pretend Op Anch is a single use time machine and you're the squad leader who liberates anchorage. ([censored] off its my roleplay imagination :laugh: )

Also, Its not that I feel RPGs are 'more superior' its that I feel in terms of what you can do, in shooters like Halo I feel the control on what I can do in game is limited. But in most RPGs I feel I can pretty much morph the world my way. :shrug:

I completely disagree with you. The Wasteland is not supposed to be 'realistic' relative to the reality we all see beyond our front door. This is a nuclear apocalypse, which was very, very real only 50 years ago. Fallout is not intended to be so realistic that it destroys the almost childlike sense of purpose that an RPG like Fallout can provide, nor are players supposed to suspend all disbelief and jump head-first into an utterly unrealistic world. Fallout is designed to strike a balance of real and unreal and create an experience that any other game could not.

And yet...

Is anyone else noticing the happy-go-lucky sense of 'Ha ha! Go [censored] yourselves, I'm God with a Minigun! Ahahahaha! *explosion that destroys NV strip*' that permeates from F:NV? That's the feeling I'm getting from New Vegas rather than the dark, gritty, 'Ahhh, I'll die at any second and I only have 20 health and both my legs are crippled and I don't have any Stimpaks and these five .32 rounds won't last long in my broken Hunting Rifle, and I've just been torn apart by a Raider's Assault Rifle.'

Am I the only one feeling that?

regarding Anchorage: the entire DLC was a (light-hearted) response to people (specifically Fallout fans) claiming Fallout 3 had gone the way of a generic shooter. it was linear and full of regenerating health and ammo dumps to poke fun at similar trends in popular FPSs. (it was also really really fun.)

on-topic: i've always been sort of an advocate for realism in (what's become of) this series but i've got my own limits. what i described http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1074557-real-time-action-should-include-ads-so-that-its-more-approachable/page__view__findpost__p__15632130 (ignore the diceroll thing i was dumb) and what i described http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1111300-reload-the-mag/page__view__findpost__p__16295408 are about as far as i'm willing to go with regard to balancing accessibility with challenge and atmosphere. hell, i think hardcoe mode's hunger/thirst/sleeping stuff is TOO much - i never liked how it was pulled off in STALKER, though it seems like Obsidian put more effort into it than GSC did so maybe it'll actually add something to the game.

when people talk about "realism" most of them aren't saying OPERATION FLASHPOINT: MUTANTS RISING, they're saying "let's have consistency and challenge and atmosphere in this game". it's possible to make elements of a game feel more cohesive and immersive without completely ruining the game, or putting more emphasis on one part of the game and ignoring the rest. you can have accurate ballistics modeling in a game that uses stats for combat without the game becoming more of an FPS.



not at all, but i'm not too worried about it. the underlying systems in place seem like they'll lend themselves nicely to interesting survivalist mods.

I'd say the graphics, on today's standards, look fairly realistic (as opposed to cartoony), and that's a good thing. But beyond that, I think Fallout 3 has the level of gameplay just right. Not too realistic and not too exaggerated. Okay, exaggerated for the sake of falling off Moria's deck to the ground below, and stumbling back to her for a quick "damage mission", and getting filled with a hail of bullets and still able to repair yourself in a few seconds time. But that's what makes the game fun, because it's not real.

if you want something ells in the game then mod it.

im on the fence with this, my personel opinion of fallout was that it has realistic aspects mixed with over the top crazy humor and gameplay/gore and great interesting charaters which is great. but if you add too much realism its just gonna make the game boring and you wont have as many laughs and it wont have the same feel that it should have ,but if its too over the top it will just be stupid, from what i can tell fallout new vegas has it perfect.




but its does make me laugh when some people who are cod [censored] come here and say they want it to be realistic, when modern campfare 2 is the most unrealistic game ever...

This is the amount of realism I expect...
I pick something up and drop it, it falls down.
I fall from a large height, I get hurt.
I shoot someone, they get hurt (sans Power Armor, that will probably take more ammo).
Someone shoots me, I get hurt.
I shoot someone in the head, it does significantly more damage that it would in the leg or arm.
In hardcoe Mode I need to sleep, eat, and drink.
My ammo will carry weight.
..
That's really it. Those are my expectations. Outside of those variables, toss realism to the wind I say and have fun.

Most TES fans would agree with you about that, but if you had played morrowind more you woulda realized Oblivion is a dumbed down but prettier version of Morrowind, in Oblivion there was way too much level scaling whihc resulted in your character owning at lvl 5 but the higher he gets the worse he gets until a bandit can blow you away. So imo at least they messed up on the scaling in Oblivion and hopefully further games like F:NV and TES 5 they will have fixed it.