About V.A.T.S

[barzam]

This paragraph from the press release made me wonder:

Blast ‘Em Away With V.A.T.S.! –Even the odds in combat with the Vault-Tec® Assisted Targeting System for your Pip-Boy Model 3000! V.A.T.S. allows you to pause time in combat, target specific body parts on your target, queue up attacks, and let Vault-Tec take out your aggression for you. Rain death and destruction in an all-new cinematic presentation featuring gory dismemberments and spectacular explosions.

In my book Fallout's combat wasn't the parts I really enjoyed, so I'm not really worried about the combat in FO3. Anyway, the turn based combat of the original games being meant to simulate a PnP experience and therefore not breaking the playing experience I find myself wondering about this new thing.

It seems to suggest that the PC (and from what I understand also the NPCs/enemies) is actually able to stop time using some kind of super power, and I really can't seem to make out how it won't feel out of character using it.

Are we supposed to see it as some sort of aiming device attached to the Pip boy (eg some sort of maching working in-game), or just a gameplay gimmick that only works outside the Fallout universe?

 

[steelsoldier]

I have a feeling that we are randomly hitting the opponent when fighting, and when we have vats activated we can use aimed attack, but this turns the game even stranger because the melee fuctions are going to be different than the previous fallouts

 

[DocConrad]

Here is how I figure it based on everything I've read:

You queue your actions (targeted shots, reloads and possibly inventory) in VATS and then when you exit they unfold in a slow motion cinematic sequence, this is your turn. After your turn the game re-enters real time and the enemy attacks you while your action points recharge, essentially serving as the enemy's turn. When the AP meter is filled and you can hit pause again for your next "turn" or you can choose to run and gun instead of running for cover, in which case your AP will not recharge and you can continue the battle entirely in real time. Not turn based, I don't even know if it counts as quasi-turn based, but it's something (?).

 

[Sander]

Here is how I figure it based on everything I've read:

You queue your actions (targeted shots, reloads and possibly inventory) in VATS and then when you exit they unfold in a slow motion cinematic sequence, this is your turn. After your turn the game re-enters real time and the enemy attacks you while your action points recharge, essentially serving as the enemy's turn. When the AP meter is filled and you can hit pause again for your next "turn" or you can choose to run and gun instead of running for cover, in which case your AP will not recharge and you can continue the battle entirely in real time. Not turn based, I don't even know if it counts as quasi-turn based, but it's something (?).

No it isn't, and your explanation is extremely farfetched. You cannot run or do anything other than aim in VATS, meaning your just queuing up shots. To be able to actually walk somewhere, which is pretty essential to tactical combat, you need to be *out* of VATS.
Also, you can still shoot and walk in your 'enemy's turn' (ie. normal time).

 

[DocConrad]

It has been stated in at least one of the articles posted on this website's front page that you can que reloads and I never said you could move while in VATS nor did I claim you could not move in your enemy's "turn".

Here, I'll rephrase:

-you pause
-you que targetted shots / reloads and possibly access inventory
-you activate your actions by exiting VATS
-your queued actions are played out in slow motion outside of your control while the camera follows the action cinematically
-the game reverts back to player control / real time and the enemy attacks you while your action points recharge
-you pause again

of course at any point you have the option to simply leave VATS and run and gun in real time.

I should also note that it has been confirmed that after you leave your VATS queue the actions are shown cinematically, the game then re-enters realtime while the enemy attacks you. The reason I refer to this as an enemy turn is if you are choosing to use VATS you will have to wait for your AP to recharge while they attack, and they essentially will have to wait to attack you while the cinematic portion, your attack, is unfolding. This of course does not mean that you cannot run around and dodge these attacks to the best of your ability while your action points replentish.

 

[Sander]

It has been stated in at least one of the articles posted on this website's front page that you can que reloads and I never said you could move while in VATS nor did I claim you could not move in your enemy's "turn".

Did I claim anywhere that you did?

Here, I'll rephrase:

-you pause
-you que targetted shots / reloads and possibly access inventory
-you activate your actions by exiting VATS
-your queued actions are played out in slow motion outside of your control while the camera follows the action cinematically
-the game reverts back to player control / real time and the enemy attacks you while your action points recharge
-you pause again

of course at any point you have the option to simply leave VATS and run and gun in real time.

I should also note that it has been confirmed that after you leave your VATS queue the actions are shown cinematically, the game then re-enters realtime while the enemy attacks you. The reason I refer to this as an enemy turn is if you are choosing to use VATS you will have to wait for your AP to recharge while they attack, and they essentially will have to wait to attack you while the cinematic portion, your attack, is unfolding. This of course does not mean that you cannot run around and dodge these attacks to the best of your ability while your action points replentish.

Yes, you can essentially do *anything you want* while your action points return. Hence why this doesn't even resemble turn-based. You're just walking around until you can pause the game again. To call that 'turns' is ridiculous.

 

[DocConrad]

Hence the quotations marks on the word "turn" and the note at the end where I essentially say calling it turn based is bullshit. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills, man.

Not turn based, I don't even know if it counts as quasi-turn based, but it's something (?).

 

[Sander]

Hence the quotations marks on the word "turn" and the note at the end where I essentially say calling it turn based is bullshit. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills, man.

Not turn based, I don't even know if it counts as quasi-turn based, but it's something (?).

No I don't. I know you didn't claim it to be turn-based, but you made a big comparison to turn-based somehow coming to the conclusion that 'at least it's something'. Which I found ludicrous, and hence commented on.

 

[DocConrad]

Fine, fine. Anyways, I'm fairly certain that is how VATS functions, I was simply using the familiar TB terminology to make it easier to conceptualize.

 

[barzam]

Thanks for the input, but I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. For the sake of the discussion, let's suggest that Fallout 3 will be an RPG (with emphasis on 'role playing', although by the looks of things this might not be the case).

In an RPG you are supposed to play a role, being in some cases a wielder of magic or perhaps a gun slinger, you get the point. My question was actually not how VATS was supposed to work in-game but in what way (if any) VATS is supposed to reflect an ability the PC might possess or not. Is your character actually able to stop time to aim better?

That the ability is somehow made by Vault-tec and incorporated into the Pip boy suggests that this is actually the case, but the whole idea just is too retarded to believe..

In the old turn-based games the turns were clearly not in the game, by which I mean not simulating the combat taking place, but a pen and paper RPG.

 

[DocConrad]

Ah, gotcha gotcha, I see what you are getting at. Yeah I really don't see that making any sense at all. In fact it is so nonsensical there really is no desputing it.

Another thing that bothers me about VATS is that after all this talk used to justify the switch to first person and how it is the ULTIMAAATE perspective for immersion, VATS goes from a freeze frame in first person to a detatched cinematic thrid person in slow motion and then back into real time first or third person, depending on what perspective you were playing in the game. Really they could not be doing more to demolish any sense of "immersion" supposedly established by this ultimate perspective change.

 

[knightablaze]

After mulling over VATS, I've decided that it sounds like it would function like an impromptu cover system.

You're confronted. You pull a gun and your VATS system and load up a few shots. Summon pretty cinematics where you take aim at specific body parts and fire away madly. At the end of the prettiness you're out of AP and left to run, duck, dodge, and otherwise survive until you can load up another batch of aimed shots.

Of course, this assumes that running and gunning isn't very effective and that you need AP to succeed at combat.

 

[mizajam]

Propositions bout V.A.T.S. and general FPP style:

A few words about V.A.T.S. and CP companions (known also as „mercenaries” which is barely acceptable and – I hope – unfortunate simplification), concerning combat in FPP. I can’t say that I won’t miss the old isometric view and turns. But since it’s Bethesda specialty, and it’s ekhm… up-to-date, we should do whatever it takes to make it more RPG.

Now it is my hope and desire that the game will be worth it’s ancestors so I feel it is my obligation to add some ideas to make it at least a little right. RPG combat system in FFP style should allow player to pause the game at all times – perhaps basing entirely on VATS – thus allowing not only to think things though and plan it and target enemies but also to do the inventory and issue commands to comrades.
While player’s lack of full control over his comrades seems good idea – just like in original Fallouts, you are more attached to your character when he or she is all that you may be sure of – it would be shame to be unable to communicate with them during fight. I would be very content if there was a possibility of giving commands to other party members (“mercenaries”) during the fight. I would be happy if chance of successfully convincing others to execute command in combat was determine by characters charisma and speech (or sub-skill “leadership”).
Ordinary real-time fight could look like regular FPShooting only with skills (and time of aiming maybe) determining accuracy like in Deus Ex (the lack of accuracy should not be represented by “floating cross” like in Far-Cry). There is also an idea of additionally (aside of skill-related accuracy) implementing the shooting system known from Half-Life in which gun automatically aims at target when target is sufficiently close to the pointer-cross. This means that in normal real-action fight player automatically aims at silhouette of his/her enemy (normally in chest), and can not – with FPP Shooter experience – instantly enjoy head-shot. This will make whole AP-using targeting system reasonable and useful.
All specific (“not-exactly-combat” actions), like using chemicals, issuing commands even reloading clips, etc. should cost APs (restorable with time of not shooting) and should be done only through pause or VATS. I’m not sure if the action itself should or should not take action and be seen during real-time mode. Anyway this system might just make this FPP game a little more RPG…
The FF Perspective should finally allow to leave the rule in which there were possible ridiculous situations like switching Bozar to Turboplazma during the fight without any APs cost, because they were held… in one hand each. In the inventory there should be left (of course) to two slots representing hands like before, but each accepting only one-handed weapons. These should be connected so that two-handed weapons would occupy both slots. It would also be nice if whether the gun is both- or single-handed was determined by it’s weight and user’s strength.

Eventually, FPP doesn’t sound as such a terrible idea. Why? Well, I consider turn-based system introduced in Fallout 1&2 as almost perfect: pointer-mode-switch by right-klick gave possibility of distinguishing (and counting) hexagonal fields; color outline of creatures that showed up with target-cross-pointer. If was very clear, comfortable and intuitive – very RPG… When Interplay in Fallout: Tactics abandoned it, I was disappointed in theory and annoyed in practice. Few new problems – completely unknown in the first Fallouts – occurred because of that: difficulties with estimating number of action points necessary to move; even problems with pointing waypoint, selecting characters or targets in “crowdie situations”, simply because they were slightly moving while just standing (breathing – witch wouldn’t have been a problem if the old Fallout system had been introduced). In Van Buren Interplay was probably going the same “tactical” way – as well as with abandoning a lot of ’50s style. So if that was the idea of making F3 – with “modernizing” Fallout both ways (system and ambience) – I would rather see something completely new – even quasi shooter RPG. I’d also like to add that somehow some of the fun with isometric view faded away just because of introducing crouch and prone mode… In my view part of the Fallout style was all-stand-up-fights, like in old western movies gunfights – everyone seemed to shout “Bring it on. I was born stand-up!”. But that just might be only my impression. Anyway, think (actually I hope) that FFP if done right, isn’t that a bad idea, even for the computer RPG of all times.