Look at it this way :

You have people that suck at a game, people that are good at a game, and people that excel at a game.

Perhaps it''s a matter of designing for the demographical average, where the most people will find it just right, and be ''good'' at it.

Save, of course, for arcade games, where everyone is supposed to suck, and therefore keep plowing the coins in.

quote:Original post by Wavinator
but just to survive. In an open ended game like Fallout, where you can travel anywhere on the map, it made me think that the many times I''ve stumbled into the midst of an impossible squad of near-invincible enemies was a design flaw. Not a preference, or a player mistake, but something that the game itself does wrong.

''Course, it''s not so simple: By their very definition, you''re SUPPOSED to be able to LOSE a game. So maybe it is the player''s fault?

In the context of Fallout 2, I believe this to be a design flaw. For several reasons,

1. It uses squads of very dangerous enemies to keep you from getting near to the ending taking a course through the rest of the game. [Ie. You have to explore in a semi-linear fashion]

-> A. I think that instead of resorting to this tactic it should either have blocked off the ending point via impassable landmasses (cliffs etc) as seen in Final Fantasy 7.. etc.

-> B. Allowed you to see that it was a dangerous area [corpses, blast craters, reports of it being a no man''s land, etc.], and given you the opportunity to turn back.

I dont see your point. They arent dumping super-strong enemies to keep you from getting somewhere. They are just supposed to be there!!!

Just think of it... At the start of the game, you are a tribal with just a spear. Okay. Easy. Thing is, this requires wits. You *know* you arent the best fighter out there, since your first encounter with a few ants was a bit... painfull... Now, you are supposed to move out into a world full of gun-toting criminals and para-military groups. Still with me?

The Fallout principle is simple. Each kind of enemy has his own strenghts troughout the game. You are supposed to pick your enemies wisely. Heading towards a camp *full* of iron-clan military dudes with plasma rifles, isnt considered a smart move... Compare it to the real world. Once you enter a secret US military base, you will get shot. They arent gonna check on you, see you are unarmed and weak, and then discard their weapons to be a fair challenge to you??????

Now, let''s turn it to your kind of game... I assume you want the enemies to be balanced to the skills of your character.

Okay, then lets head towards Navarro. It is the secret hideout of the Enclave, the strongest group in this part of the US. YOu, armed with your VaultSuit, PiPBoy, and Sharpened spear, walk towards it. The Enclave has man patrols out there, to guard their base. They got plasma rifles and all. Now they end up, fining a silly tribal, about to discover their base...

"Allright troups! There is a tribal! Are you all ready?"
"Yes sir..."
"I cant hear you!!!"
"YES SIR!!!"
"Good! Prepare yourselfs!"
The whole groups trows aways their guns, and ditch their armours. Then they tie their hands to their backs...
"Okay! Let''s get him!!! Raaaah!!!!"

Stupid tribal barely defeats the Soldiers, and is now going to murder the entire Enclave with his knife, because he was stupid anough to break his spear...

Fun game!!!

I''m going to disagree with the parallel proverb. Teachers, students, and gamers can adapt themselves to the situation their in. A student can try to learn something a different way. A teacher can recognise a student isn''t responding and change teaching techniques. A gamer can try a different approach to a problem. A game''s design cannot recognise that a player isn''t doing well and should change itself. If I''m playing a game with a little kid or something, yeah I can change the rules so that the kid has a fighting chance or something. But I don''t think this is necissarilly something that should be done in an RPG. Why any RPG would have a difficulty setting is beyond me.

(This Fallout stuff is never going to end is it?)

I would say that in Fallout the design flaw isn''t so much running into impossible squads. The flaw is that they shoot you down without first telling you to F* off. Then when you don''t they should open fire and then you reload. Also, if I''m not mistaken (and this isn''t particularly obvious) the Outdoorsman skill was supposed to protect you from encounters to some degree. If it was high enough, you are alerted of an encounter and get to choose to engage. I think it also was supposed to affect character starting position to allow for easier retreat. Now this may not be obvious and the name of the skill may be inapropriate, but the implimentation is there.

I was very impressed with the concept of HOW and WHY pencil dungeon master run Roleplaying games work.

What are RPGs?

They are a form of group entertainment.. VERY FLEXIBLE in CONTENT. Using many elements to entertain the "players".

The dungeon keeper will adjust the entertainment factors [humour, descriptive characterisation, near misses in combat,etc.]

and to fit the audience:

The situations encountered are matched to the players, if there is danger they WILL GET FAIR WARNING of this and be able to plan accordingly whether this means that they run away [sensible?] or decide to procede [and maybe meet more than they bargained for]