PlayStation Universe interviews Pete Hines

[JESUS]

So, if it's in first person and it has shooting, it's a first person shooter - right?

No, but if it's in FP with more shooting than RPG is a FPS with rpg elements, like Stalker. If it's in FP with more enfaces in the RPG part is a RPG with FP perspective.

As far as how the videos look, explain a realistic way of showing first person combat with fallout's weapons without it looking like an FPS at a glance.

Damn, thats the whole point you should not trust BS, they don't show anything RPG just FPS, you want me to take their word that this is a true Fallout sequel? no thanks i stopped doing that with the RAI fiasco.

 

[pkt-zer0]

As far as how the videos look, explain a realistic way of showing first person combat with fallout's weapons without it looking like an FPS at a glance.

Make the game turn-based, for instance having only VATS to shoot and move in combat (preferably without the overabundant cinematic slo-mo gorefest part). You can put the camera wherever you want after nailing down the gameplay mechanics.

 

[fedaykin]

If you play in real time there is less of a break from the real time conversations and looking about. So if you accept the non-combat as being immersive then you'd have to accept FPS combat being more immersive than TB. Where as if you accept the immersion level running about and clicking in FO/FO2 and then break into TB combat it could be argued that theat change of 'pace' breaks immersion.

What does 'immersion' mean to you?

 

[sarfa]

Brother None, when saying that Real time doesn't evolve from turn based, I suggest you look at other turn based systems. In some cases, that is very much the case. I actually have no preference either way, I just disagree strongly with the idea that real time combat isn't P&P emulation because it doesn't evolve from turn based, because it does evolve from some variants of turn based systems.

Ok, yep, GM says 'you' fair enough. Could you show me what a second person camera would look like? Nearest you'de get is first person, which is the point I was trying to make. Thats why Eye of the Beholder and such like were first person.

One is only LARPing when one crosses roleplaying with exercise. Pretending to be another person is the main idea of the hobby, you play the character.

Hmm, a computer game based on MURPG is actually possible quite simply, but not for Amber. I've never said that P&P emulation should cut out dice rolls, at least that wasn't my intended meaning, what I was saying there was that diceless can work, in relation to your implication that it couldn't. I'll admit that counter point had no relevance to Fallout.

I do not for a second believe that Bethesda is doing any form of a good job when it comes to emulating P&P mechanics. I have never argued that. However, I do not believe it's fair to use that the way you are simply because Fallout didn't do it nearly as consistently as the designers of the game claim. Yes, I believe very much that P&P was the starting block for much of Fallout and how Fallout works- thats one of the things I like about Fallout- it's possible to actually 'get in character' and play a character, not just a stat sheet (Which is what we get from TES and D&D- no I don't think that D&D emulates P&P very well either ).

However, the point I was trying to make before getting side tracked onto the "P&P philosophy debate" was that at some point the desingers of Fallout decided that they were going to leave that starting block of emulating P&P and then came up with combat mechanics which are (in my opinion) about as far away from fun P&P combat as one can get, and in fact only works because Fallout isn't a P&P game, it's a CRPG. That is, Fallout wasn't always trying to emulate P&P.

 

[Brother None]

Brother None, when saying that Real time doesn't evolve from turn based, I suggest you look at other turn based systems. In some cases, that is very much the case. I actually have no preference either way, I just disagree strongly with the idea that real time combat isn't P&P emulation because it doesn't evolve from turn based, because it does evolve from some variants of turn based systems.

That's again taking the wrong steps logically. Pen and paper emulating RPGs try to emulate the experience including turn-based combat. I have never seen a pen and paper emulating RPG without it. Yes, some RPG developers decided to drop this philosophy and go for RT/RTwP RPGs and - later on - "immersion". Good for them, but it is a different genre. That's not a knock against it, it's just trying to not confuse the issue.

Could you show me what a second person camera would look like? Nearest you'de get is first person, which is the point I was trying to make.

So you were serious? Look, camera angles and linguistic choices are pretty distinct, and I'd have a hard time taking any argument seriously that reads cRPGs have to be first-person because GMs say "you". Does that mean that books in third person should be made into games in third person, and books in first person into games in first person?

The only relevant argument here could be that RPG mechanics separate the player from the character. I wonder, you're probably not the kind of player that refers to his character is he/she, right? I do. Why? Because my character has a unique set of skills that is not tied to my abilities. Third person certain underlines this fact.

But as I said, my personal belief is that camera works aren't that relevant. I believe RoA does it best: map view for travel, first person for exploration, isometric for combat. RoA certainly doesn't become any less of a pen and paper emulation for its first-person exploration. If anything it rides the genre better than Fallout does.

However, I do not believe it's fair to use that the way you are simply because Fallout didn't do it nearly as consistently as the designers of the game claim.

I have not seen a convincing argument on this point. Your combat argument didn't really work, as I pointed out. Not to mention the original intent was to just use the GURPS-system of combat and copy it off, only the deal falling through got in the way. Can't really fault the developers for that.

Still, Fallout is an emulation of pen and paper. It's not a copy. Pretty big difference.

 

[Ausir]

That's again taking the wrong steps logically. Pen and paper emulating RPGs try to emulate the experience including turn-based combat. I have never seen a pen and paper emulating RPG without it.

Didn't NWN try to emulate the PnP experience too, even if they focused on a different aspect of it (gamemaster mode and such)?

 

[Brother None]

Didn't NWN try to emulate the PnP experience too, even if they focused on a different aspect of it (gamemaster mode and such)?

...Yes.

Just not consistently.

I've been avoiding this point because it confuses the argument so much. There's a difference between starting out from emulating pen and paper completely and then making adaptations to computer reality along the way or starting out emulating part of the pen and paper experience (DMing for NWN) and dropping other parts at your own convenience.

 

[sarfa]

If you're emulating a turn based combat system, why is creating one far to complex to ever be used in a P&P game any different than making it real time, or RTwP? I don't think it does, and in my opinion all three are apropriate for P&P emulation. Hell, NWN is a P&P combat system (technically- still don't like d20) done in RTwP mode- surely that is just as apropriate for P&P emulation as a pure turn based system built on mathmatics far to complex for reasonable use in a P&P session.

I never said anything about CRPGS 'having' to be first person, what I said was that first person was not inapropriate for P&P emulation, because that is how the character would percieve the world and P&P is about "in character", and perceiving the world in P&P emulation the way your character does isn't a bad thing. I didn't say it was better than Isometric, as you quite rightly state, Isometric is the best option for turn based (and indeed, RTwP) combat, but a game being in First Person does not prove that P&P emulation isn't taking place.

As for whether I refer to my character as he/she- depends on context. With the people I play with, it's fairly common during the game to refer to your character as "I"- but not outside it. As in "I walk over to the bar and examine the glass". It's simply part of getting in character, and it does help get better 'performances' out of players.

What I've been saying about Fallouts combat mechanics is that at some point the developers when making this combat system decided to stop emulating P&P, and the end result is quite different. Look at the mathematics involved in Fallouts combat system- the only thing causing it to be closer to how P&P works than Final Fantasy (earlier ones) combat systems is that Fallout only gives you control of one character. Emulating P&P in Fallout, as far as combat was concerned, was only an intention, it only emulates P&P as well as any other turn based computer game does.

 

[Brother None]

If you're emulating a turn based combat system, why is creating one far to complex to ever be used in a P&P game any different than making it real time, or RTwP?

Far too complex? I'm thinking maybe Fallout is less complex than you think, actually. Look at its basic rules. Those are well doable. The ranged rules are a bit more complex but still doable if you have a good quick-ref system.

That said, adding complexity is just taking advantage of the capabilities the computer has: think of it as having a supersmart DM. Real-time is offering a significantly different experience.

Pretty much apples and oranges, there.

Hell, NWN is a P&P combat system (technically- still don't like d20) done in RTwP mode- surely that is just as apropriate for P&P emulation as a pure turn based system built on mathmatics far to complex for reasonable use in a P&P session.

You're not one for reading posts not directly addressed to you, are you? This point is addressed right above your post.

what I said was that first person was not inapropriate for P&P emulation

I agree.

because that is how the character would percieve the world and P&P is about "in character"

I disagree. You're basically force-feeding the entire genre on specific mode of play, dontchaknow.

What I've been saying about Fallouts combat mechanics is that at some point the developers when making this combat system decided to stop emulating P&P, and the end result is quite different.

'k, but I just explained they had to cut the GURPS combat system, and on top of that I already addressed this argument a page or two back. Just repeating it isn't going to convince me.

 

[Ausir]

If you're emulating a turn based combat system, why is creating one far to complex to ever be used in a P&P game any different than making it real time, or RTwP?

Fallout's system is too complex? Ever seen Rolemaster?

 

[ArmorB]

If you play in real time there is less of a break from the real time conversations and looking about. So if you accept the non-combat as being immersive then you'd have to accept FPS combat being more immersive than TB. Where as if you accept the immersion level running about and clicking in FO/FO2 and then break into TB combat it could be argued that theat change of 'pace' breaks immersion.

What does 'immersion' mean to you?

Dunno, I don't really deal in that currency. But I understand that it seems to exist for other gamers. To me immersion is broken immediatly after I see a health bar, armor and ammo count floating around the screen.

But if 'you' accept that immersion exists in the non-combat form of the game, then if you change styles for combat you could then say that the immersion has changed and perhaps broken.

 

[sarfa]

I have seen systems based on rolemaster- the maths isn't as complex.

IYes, Fallouts combat rules are fairly simple- I haven't said otherwise. The arithmetic isn't, and looking at how much damage actually gets passed on can involve multiplaying by some odd numbers. I'll give you that real time is pretty different, but based on the idea that no GM should give you forever to think and plan, RTwP isn't really.

Your post about NWN wasn't there when I started typing my last post. However, I do think that NWN's combat system matched how d20's worked quite well and didn't significantly alter the feel much from what I remember of playing d20.

My apologies, it was never my intention to come across as forse feeding anyone anything. I was simply saying that from my believes on what P&P emulation should be that percieving the world how your character does is a good reason to use first person view in P&P emulation. I don't think it's a must, and I don't think that P&P emulation attempts automatically fail if they don't use first person.

I know the original intent was just to use GURPS- but thats not what they did. I was talking about the end result mainly. In my opinion putting in mathematics that is slow to do in ones head bends the P&P emulation ideal, hence to get to that point they stopped emulating P&P. Them having to cut the GURPS combat system isn't relevant. I'm not really trying to convince you Brother None, we simply seem to be of different opinions as to what breaks the P&P emulation ideal and what doesn't, so realistically I'm never going to convince you and your never going to convince me.

 

[Brother None]

but based on the idea that no GM should give you forever to think and plan, RTwP isn't really.

How is simultaneous action not inherently different from sequential action? RTwP is still simultaneous action.

However, I do think that NWN's combat system matched how d20's worked quite well and didn't significantly alter the feel much from what I remember of playing d20.

It'd alter the feel even less if it were turn-based. Zing!

In my opinion putting in mathematics that is slow to do in ones head bends the P&P emulation ideal, hence to get to that point they stopped emulating P&P. Them having to cut the GURPS combat system isn't relevant.

How not. Your argument is that they stopped emulating P&P somewhere, as a choice they made. I find that dubitable considering Fallout's combat isn't actually that mind-bogglingly complex, but even accepting that, it doesn't reflect on their p&p-emulating intent when it is a forced adaption due to the loss of GURPS.

 

[fedaykin]

Dunno, I don't really deal in that currency. But I understand that it seems to exist for other gamers. To me immersion is broken immediatly after I see a health bar, armor and ammo count floating around the screen.

What about the moment you sit down in front of a monitor and grab a mouse and keyboard?

But if 'you' accept that immersion exists in the non-combat form of the game, then if you change styles for combat you could then say that the immersion has changed and perhaps broken.

That's only if each combat style has its level of immersiveness ranging from non-immersive to immersive. I don't think that's true. They are simply different styles of play, each with its strengths and weaknesses, as BN put it.

 

[ArmorB]

What about the moment you sit down in front of a monitor and grab a mouse and keyboard?

Sure I'll give you that, I guess it's best to say that I don't get immersed. I tend to appreciate a game for what it has to offer and what it's trying to do, I never really used immersion in those criteria.

That's only if each combat style has its level of immersiveness ranging from non-immersive to immersive. I don't think that's true. They are simply different styles of play, each with its strengths and weaknesses, as BN put it.

So then it comes down to each person to decide how immersive any one aspect of a game is or not. But my aurgument still stands in my mind.

 

[sarfa]

Brother None, yes RTwP is simultaneous action. In NWN and other such RTwP games based on P&P there is still a turn order, it's just turns are passing in real time. Clicking more quickly doesn't give you more attacks, while you can issue commands whenever you have to wait till your turn for it to happen. NWN is more real time with turns really.

I haven't said that sequential and simultaneous action are not inherently different. What I have said is that real time is not inherently worse for emulating P&P- NWN for example (Which even has it's turns last the same amount of time as a D&D turn is meant to).

Whats with the Zing? NWN's combat is turn based, so if it was turn based it'd be what it already is.

What they threw out because they couldn;t use due to deals falling through is not a relevant (Hate to use the word) excuse for what they ended up with. Now, if you'd looked at the Maths behind how Fallout works you'd know that at the very least a calculator would be needed to make it all work- when the developers crossed the line to make that a neccesity for running the combat system without a computer, it stopped emulating P&P combat systems, and started emulating CRPG combat systems. I'm not talking about intent, I agree with you that P&P emulation was the intent, but it's not what they ended up with, at least no more so than Final Fantasy or any other computer game with a turn based combat system.

 

[Brother None]

NWN's combat is turn based, so if it was turn based it'd be what it already is.

No it isn't. It is a realtime system. It running on a turn-based system underneath does not make it turn-based, since actions and commands still happen on a simultaneous basis. Simultaneous action is per definition not the same as turn-based.

I'm not sure what you're arguing otherwise. If you're emulating pen and paper, naturally sticking as close to the core concept is always better than abandoning the core concept. Whether you tweak an existing concept (combat calculation) to be more complex to something a computer can easily handle is pretty different from abandoning an existing concept (turn-based combat) for another (simultaneous combat).

What they threw out because they couldn;t use due to deals falling through is not a relevant (Hate to use the word) excuse for what they ended up with.

I'm not making an excuse, but it's relevant to the argument: how much was Fallout intended to be a pen and paper emulating game. If you're going to argue they "gave up" or "failed" to make a perfect emulation due to combat system you do have to take factors like GURPS into account.

Now, if you'd looked at the Maths behind how Fallout works you'd know that at the very least a calculator would be needed to make it all work

I have and yes, you'd probably need a calculator and a good spread sheet.

You have honestly never seen or played a pen and paper system with combat on roughly that same level of complexity?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I've never played pen and paper role-playing games (well, one lunch period in 7th grade). Most of society 20 years ago had never played pen and paper role-playing games, even less play them now. It is unrealistic to expect videogame developers to cater specifically to such a small demographic, especially since pen and paper rpgs still exist. You can play them. You can make them up, you can draw your own maps and everything. I'm sure cRPGs that emulated P&P RPGs met with some of the same conservative ire that you level at Bethesda.

Actually PnP is more popular than ever with D&D 4th Edition gift set preorders (not including the books sold individually) being the 7th most on the site at the time (may have gotten higher, found this on an old blog post), higher on their hot-new release list (didn't have a number, from the same blog post), and got 4th on the New York Times hardcover fiction best seller list.

I'd suggest doing some research before making such claims.

Ugh, D&D 4.0 is to P&P games what Fallout 3 is to CRPGs. Seriously dude, for what a P&P game should be like have a look at Pendragon, WFRP or Cortex.

4th Edition is a great system, it's not perfect but it's actually well designed, balanced, unlike 3.x in which many of the numbers were assigned arbitrarily, and much more userfriendly (organized). Is it just like 3.x, 2nd, AD&D, or D&D? Nope, but they always have had pretty big changes and none of them have been super alike to previous games, they've had carryovers, just as 4th Edition does, but they've changed what needed to be changed (3.x screwed the pooch in what they changed stuff to in some instances).

Whether or not it's fun is an arguable point but as a system I think it's a success.

A note on P&P rpg and choice/consequence...I played in a good number of P&P games in my younger years and one thing rang true, no matter what 'you' wanted to do, you were bound by the whim of the GM/DM. If he wanted you to go to that damned evil looking dark castle, then every god damned path was going to that castle no matter what direction you turned. And lets say you got spooked by the main quest giver and had some misunderstanding and left his corpse hanging in a tree, then magically there was either another quest giver or the first one received divine grace and was resurrected.

Point being that just because the game facilitates unlimited choices doesn't mean the guy running the show gives them to you. The DM/GM wants you to have fun and even though they may not be able to be as flexible as another DM/GM doesn't make them a bad one, just different. So basically Beth is a DM/GM that wants you to have fun rather than suffer because you made a stupid mistake and have to reroll.

As well there is another perspective on this. I ran a couple P&P groups back in the day and I wrote all my stuff from scratch, drew up my own maps and wrote out NPC backgrounds. Some times I made stuff that was 'so cool' (to a 15 year old) that I had to make the group experience it. In after thought that wasn't so much for their fun but for my own in the need to watch it unfold (hopefully the way I planned it).

The question is what is the goal of the campaign, to be linearly or non-linearly fun? How many outcomes do you plan for? Can you come up with solutions on the fly? Personally, I find enjoyment in both but good DMs and GMs can make you follow thier planned adventure by designing it as something your characters want to do while poor DMs and GMs just come up with adventures and force the players into it, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. Of course there is a certain amount that the players have to go along but all in all, it's a varriable experience but I'd say that DMs and GMs who can't or don't react to the player's actions are poor ones. Remember that there is a difference between a roleplaying game and an action/adventure game, even in PnP.

First of all, you play these games because you enjoy them, stigmatizing "fun" just makes you sound pretentious. I'm not a Jerry Bruckheimer fan, I'm not an unwashed hun, I think videogames should be fun. Hint: So does everybody. I know you mean "fun at the expense of" etc. etc. but come on, can we all agree we like our games fun?

Indeed but justifying a complete overhaul of a system because the old system wasn't fun and the new system is, is a problem.

Second of all, I believe it will be limited to TB because I'm a common-senser, not a doomsayer. I think it made sense to remove TB (I'll elaborate in a second) I don't think it makes sense to say that Bethesda is de-emphasizing dialogue. Didn't Pete say there was more dialogue in F3 than in the first two combined? I wish it was Tim Cain (or whoever the original writers were) but it's not, and as a common-senser I can live with that, and recognize that the writers of the original Fallouts weren't Cormac Mcarthy, they were game developers. The bar was set high by videogame standards only.

Yet they started out by saying that Fallout's bar was too high to ever reach and not worth even trying to match, let alone beat.

Every RPG is emulating pen and paper to a certain extent because the first RPG's were pen and paper (and I don't think I'm reaching too far back to make this point). The real question should be, why are we sand-bagging ourselves by trying to emulate pen and paper when we can come closer to emulating what pen and paper were trying to emulate.

They are two seperate experiences but to really roleplay then you need something to make sure that it's your character acting and reacting and not you. Following your argument you could argue that Halo's combat is the logical step for roleplaying combat in such an envirornment as it doesn't deal with all of that junk that was created to emulate RT. Why role to hit when you can aim? You are no longer roleplaying is why, you are not using your character's skills to determine their success or failure but your own. Does your character know where everyone will spawn and preempt their strikes by shooting them or blowing them up as soon as or before they show themselves?

I love fallout. That makes it my genre. No P&P or Gold-Box experience required. Sorry.

Do you love Fallout or do you love Fallout's setting? You seem to have no love for C&C and certainly none for TB combat, both of which were large and intregral parts of the game. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with loving it's setting but doing such and disliking the rest makes you just as much of a fan of Fallout as someone who hates the story and setting but loves the rest. I said this elsewhere but their is a difference between being a fan of the whole and being a fan of part, you don't have to like all of it, just most of it. It's like saying that one is a fan of a music CD but only liking two of the fifteen songs. You aren't a fan of the CD, you are a fan of those two songs, a fan of the CD will like most (say 12) or all of the songs.

Does this mean you shouldn't have to pick a specialization or... what does this mean? Because if it's what I think, there was a big difference just between F1 and F2 on this one. Again, just on it's face I'd say Oblivion had it and F3 probably will too.

It means that no approach is significantly better than another for completing the game and that no approach simply breaks the game (in Oblivion having noncombat skills as focus and then never leveling them up broke the game, as did leveling up those noncombat skills and not combat skills [when you did fight you died]).

If you play in real time there is less of a break from the real time conversations and looking about. So if you accept the non-combat as being immersive then you'd have to accept FPS combat being more immersive than TB. Where as if you accept the immersion level running about and clicking in FO/FO2 and then break into TB combat it could be argued that theat change of 'pace' breaks immersion.

As soon as any FPS allows me to see exactly what I can see of my body and have even half the movement options that I do I'll concede that, but they don't. I've never played a game that was mistakable for reallity, that isn't to say that my muscle memory hasn't reached a level where I'm not thinking pressing a button but doing a move, but that isn't limited to FPS gameplay, in fact I'd say I experience that the most with TPS action games like Devil May Cry. All in all, close TPP (doesn't have to be OTS) has always looked the most natural to me.

NWN's combat is turn based, so if it was turn based it'd be what it already is.

No it isn't. It is a realtime system. It running on a turn-based system underneath does not make it turn-based, since actions and commands still happen on a simultaneous basis. Simultaneous action is per definition not the same as turn-based.

I'm not sure what you're arguing otherwise. If you're emulating pen and paper, naturally sticking as close to the core concept is always better than abandoning the core concept. Whether you tweak an existing concept (combat calculation) to be more complex to something a computer can easily handle is pretty different from abandoning an existing concept (turn-based combat) for another (simultaneous combat).

Actually some PnP does have simulateous actions (D&D) and I don't see what's wrong with that... I see your point about how it's not turnbased (simultaneous turns aren't turns) but I don't agree. I don't see why two turns cannot happen simultaneously and still be TB.

Also, you bring up the primacy of fun design philosophy but I really don't see how that could be a design philosophy as everyone has their own tastes when it comes to what is and isn't fun (it just seems plain stupid). That isn't to say that there aren't more fun ways to do the same system (which seems to me what primacy of fun would be about...) but saying that Fallout 3 is the way it is because it's the most fun seems rediculous to me. It may be the most popular but certainly not the most fun so I'd say Beth designs with the primacy of popularity and sales rather than the primacy of fun.

 

[Brother None]

Actually some PnP does have simulateous actions (D&D) and I don't see what's wrong with that... I see your point about how it's not turnbased (simultaneous turns aren't turns) but I don't agree. I don't see why two turns cannot happen simultaneously and still be TB.

Because turn-based means "happens in turns"? And "happens in turns" means "doesn't happen simultaneously"?

Also, you bring up the primacy of fun design philosophy but I really don't see how that could be a design philosophy as everyone has their own tastes when it comes to what is and isn't fun (it just seems plain stupid). That isn't to say that there aren't more fun ways to do the same system (which seems to me what primacy of fun would be about...) but saying that Fallout 3 is the way it is because it's the most fun seems rediculous to me.

Listen to the way Todd explains any big design chance from the originals. He says "we thought it was more fun". It doesn't matter if that's just his opinion, sacrificing design elements to more fun is Primacy of Fun.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Actually some PnP does have simulateous actions (D&D) and I don't see what's wrong with that... I see your point about how it's not turnbased (simultaneous turns aren't turns) but I don't agree. I don't see why two turns cannot happen simultaneously and still be TB.

Because turn-based means "happens in turns"? And "happens in turns" means "doesn't happen simultaneously"?

I guess my point is what would you call D&D's combat then? TB with simultaneous actions?

Also, you bring up the primacy of fun design philosophy but I really don't see how that could be a design philosophy as everyone has their own tastes when it comes to what is and isn't fun (it just seems plain stupid). That isn't to say that there aren't more fun ways to do the same system (which seems to me what primacy of fun would be about...) but saying that Fallout 3 is the way it is because it's the most fun seems rediculous to me.

Listen to the way Todd explains any big design chance from the originals. He says "we thought it was more fun". It doesn't matter if that's just his opinion, sacrificing design elements to more fun is Primacy of Fun.

Right, I agree that's stupid but my point is that it doesn't make any sense as a philosophy of Primacy of Fun since it's not about perfecting a system (making it more fun), it's about replacing it (hence a different type of system and different type of fun). I'm not saying that you're wrong, rather that it's a misnomer. Though, I guess it could be correct too since the developer is designing it to be what is most fun to them regardless of who the target audience is (or changing the target audience and thus who it will be most fun for). I guess I just don't like the phrase...