Fallout 3 vs. Oblivion

[GameBanshee News]

The editors at Gameplayer have pointed out the various flaws present in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in an attempt to keep Bethesda from making the same mistakes in Fallout 3. My biggest complaint:

Enemy Levelling: This is a massive bugbear for a lot of people. Essentially, what enemy levelling, or scaling, did in Oblivion was to make character progression obsolete. In fact, it was possible to complete most of the game at a low character level, because if you levelled up too fast the monsters simply got bigger, badder and more difficult. The previous Elder Scrolls game, Morrowind, was awesome because there were distinct areas of the game that were inaccessible due to higher level enemies. This gave you something to strive for. It gave you a purpose.

Although the overused voice acting and AI is a close second:

Artificial Intelligence: All reports are that Fallout 3’s list of NPCs is much smaller than Oblivion’s, so there will be less people to interact with. What we hope this means is that your relationships with these characters will be much more believable. With around 40 different voices being used for Fallout 3, those embarrassing vocal mess ups we witnessed in Oblivion should be a thing of the past.

And while Bethesda is still going for the open world approach with Fallout 3, it looks like they are going about it the right way. For example, you will be able to hire NPCs to follow you and, presumably, fight for you. Will these characters be fully fleshed side-kicks with realistic situational dialogue? We hope so.

[Xandax]

I can only agree - and level scaling even makes a game no-buy for me.
It basically turns a RPG into a pure action/shooter type game.

It is amongst reasons why I never got too far in Oblivion because the game suddenly became "unplayable" because I had levelled in non-combat skills.
And it is even the main reason for why I never bought Mass Effect.

[Siberys]

No Level Scaling is a must.

If a Dragon exists, it's not gonna care if you're level 1 or 40, you equals food.

[fable]

They just specify enemy leveling, but treasure leveling was just as much a game-killer, too.

Not to mention kiddie puzzles, and quests that literally forced you to solve them in only a single way. But I fully expect to see these in Fallout 3.

[Siberys]

Agreed. If they're gonna make a puzzle solvable only one way, they should make it ridiculously hard in my opinion. Maybe a puzzle dealing with bases.

Good god I'd love to see a Base 16 puzzle, it'd be SO complicated.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by fable

They just specify enemy leveling, but treasure leveling was just as much a game-killer, too.

Not to mention kiddie puzzles, and quests that literally forced you to solve them in only a single way. But I fully expect to see these in Fallout 3.

Yeah - treasure scaling is as bad. Fighting your way through a dangerous area only to find .... an "Iron Dagger of Disappointment -5".
Things like that makes the game just a shooter/action game, and they should be sued for calling it a roleplaying game.

I can live with kiddie puzzles though - like we did in KOTOR-series for example. Not that I'm too crazy about them, but we couldn't have the punters actually thinking as well when playing, now could we

[DesR85]

...and it may just be doing this via V.A.T.S. (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System), a combat system that will allow the player to choose moments in the game where they can pause the fighting, make targeted conflict decisions and queue up attacks.

It sounds like a hybrid between the real time hack-and-slash combat of Oblivion and Mass Effect’s paused action approach. Using V.A.T.S. will cost points for both the player and enemies, so it’s going to be quite tactical; do you use those last few points for that fairly low level enemy or save it up for Mr. Nasty Mutant?

V.A.T.S. will actually let you target specific body areas for attacks, and to rather gory effect if one screenshot doing the rounds is any indication – it shows a mutant’s head exploding in a shower of gibs. What V.A.T.S. will hopefully bring to Fallout 3 is a streamlined, turn-based feel to combat.

If you can shoot off any part of the body in real-time without any problems, what is the point of doing that in pause mode (V.A.T.S.)? Besides, isn't killing the enemy much more important than trying to get an 'instant-kill' shot (unless they intentionally underpower a weapon just to force people to use V.A.T.S)?

[Tricky]

The whole article is kinda how about a nice cup of would you like some cheese with your hello captain obvious.
I mean, subtle.

Originally Posted by DesR85

If you can shoot off any part of the body in real-time without any problems, what is the point of doing that in pause mode (V.A.T.S.)?

If memory serves, they made this 'work' by using cinematics for such shots. Likely with bullet-time and whatnot, since Bethsoft has so clearly proven be a creative, original software licence hoarder. I mean, game developer.

[fable]

Yes, there is a complete absence of anything original in that piece. Plus, I'd have a lot more respect for it if Gameplayer had printed a point-by-point attack of Oblivion after it came out.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by DesR85

If you can shoot off any part of the body in real-time without any problems, what is the point of doing that in pause mode (V.A.T.S.)? Besides, isn't killing the enemy much more important than trying to get an 'instant-kill' shot (unless they intentionally underpower a weapon just to force people to use V.A.T.S)?

Actually, what I understood from some previous interview/preview (don't ask me which one, there is too many to remember ) any shot made in real time aims to torso. Also, even if that's not true, V.A.T.S. makes it possible to be more certain to hit that specific section of body, as you have all the time in world to select the part of body and shoot.

[Caden]

I have to say that I disagree with the first complaint about enemy leveling. They say that you could beat most of Oblivion at a low level, but the same thing could be said about Morrowind. The problem with Morrowind is that you got too powerful too fast. Morrowind actually made character progression obsolete once you got to a level between 20 and 30. I don't think there were any areas in Morrowind that required you to be a high level. While I would agree that enemy leveling would be a bad thing in most video games, I think it would work in a game like Morrowind or Oblivion. Enemy leveling at least makes the fights a challenge and worth your while when you are at mid to high levels in these games. Does this mean that enemy leveling makes character progression obsolete? No, not in Oblivion, because as you progress your character's skills, you get to learn new attacks and spells, as well as little things such as water walking that bring variety to the gameplay.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Caden

I have to say that I disagree with the first complaint about enemy leveling. They say that you could beat most of Oblivion at a low level, but the same thing could be said about Morrowind. The problem with Morrowind is that you got too powerful too fast. Morrowind actually made character progression obsolete once you got to a level between 20 and 30. I don't think there were any areas in Morrowind that required you to be a high level. While I would agree that enemy leveling would be a bad thing in most video games, I think it would work in a game like Morrowind or Oblivion. Enemy leveling at least makes the fights a challenge and worth your while when you are at mid to high levels in these games. Does this mean that enemy leveling makes character progression obsolete? No, not in Oblivion, because as you progress your character's skills, you get to learn new attacks and spells, as well as little things such as water walking that bring variety to the gameplay.

Firstly - becoming too powerful too fast is a problem with the games balancing and possible players exploiting the mechanics, not with levelling as a concept/mechanic. It works in countless RPGs both computer and otherwise.

Secondly it does in fact make progression obsolete, because if you do not gain relative power, it doesn't matter that you get new attacks and spells, because you do never need them. Sure I can cast a fireball rank 2 instead of rank 1, but if the enemies takes about as many rank 2 fireballs to die as they did when I used rank 1 - it is basically needless to progress. The reason you progress in RPGs is to become powerful. If you do not - it is pointless. It is like a shooter where you in the first level meet enemies which can die with a shot from a pistol, but in the next level you get a rifle instead of a pistol, and they still die with one shot from a rifle. It is a shooter mechanic and it IMO destroys RPGs and have never worked well.

Thirdly - it removes exploration and reduces challenges from the game because you can't suddenly stumble upon a difficult and dangerous area and work to beat some big challenge for a big reward, because it is all supposedly scaled to you, and you'll never find that big reward.
Also if you know that the enemies are always (supposedly) scaled by you - there is no real reason to explore those areas other then to actually see them. And well - once you see the textures, it pretty much is that. The hunt for that powerful weapon or piece of armour is void and removed. The game takes care to give you what you "need" when you "need". Again - not a RPG mechanics.

Fourth - when made wrong (as it is most of the time) it doesn't take into account levelling in non combat skills when those exists.
I levelled in non-combat skills in Oblivion for the first number of levels, and all of the sudden I actually couldn't move forward in the game because I was "high" level, yet had no combat skills, so I couldn't do enough damage to the enemies before they could kill me - and because the game scaled, I had no way of moving forward except reducing the difficulty slider. So even if they intended some noble "do not challenge the player" goal - their mechanics were seriously broken.

Level scaling, too me, ranks in the line of making easy puzzles and simple quests, quest markers to follow without reading the journal, safe insta-teleportation to areas, the gaming deciding for you what to do.
It is a cop-out design feature because it is easier to make that, then actually balancing the game, just as it is easier to make easy and simple quests then actually putting some effort into them.

It is catering to the lowest denominator in gaming and it takes RP out of the RPG and leaves only the G.

[DesR85]

Originally Posted by Kipi

Actually, what I understood from some previous interview/preview (don't ask me which one, there is too many to remember ) any shot made in real time aims to torso. Also, even if that's not true, V.A.T.S. makes it possible to be more certain to hit that specific section of body, as you have all the time in world to select the part of body and shoot.

Sure sounds like the usual cheap trick every developer use just to force the player to use a feature. I really detest that. One example is Bioshock where weapons are intentionally underpowered just to force you to use Plasmids.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Kipi

Actually, what I understood from some previous interview/preview (don't ask me which one, there is too many to remember ) any shot made in real time aims to torso. Also, even if that's not true, V.A.T.S. makes it possible to be more certain to hit that specific section of body, as you have all the time in world to select the part of body and shoot.

Hmmmm...

Not from what I remember.

It's just pretty hard to aim precisely, because Fallout 3 has that "wider reticle" thing at lower skill levels (kind of like Deus Ex). While the reticle is not visible, you can see shots veer off if your skill level is too low.

During the rounds of previews I was visiting, they were saying that ammo is really scarce and to preserve it you'll probably have to use VATS at least a few times. Since VATS hasn't been that well-received as an idea by either Fallout fans or FPS fans, they suddenly switched and now say you can finish the game with VATS. Which one is it? Or did they do a redesign of ammo scarcity so we can now just blast our way through? I have no idea.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Hmmmm...

Not from what I remember.

It's just pretty hard to aim precisely, because Fallout 3 has that "wider reticle" thing at lower skill levels (kind of like Deus Ex). While the reticle is not visible, you can see shots veer off if your skill level is too low.

During the rounds of previews I was visiting, they were saying that ammo is really scarce and to preserve it you'll probably have to use VATS at least a few times. Since VATS hasn't been that well-received as an idea by either Fallout fans or FPS fans, they suddenly switched and now say you can finish the game with VATS. Which one is it? Or did they do a redesign of ammo scarcity so we can now just blast our way through? I have no idea.

Meh, could very well be that I remembered incorrectly. Thanx for correcting.