Deified Data
Banned
You shouldn't be able to shoot yourself out of any situation, either.
My point is that survival requires most if not all of these skills. Some are just more important than others.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Fallout4 Howard: "You can avoid [killing] a lot"
- Thread starter CraigerGamer
- Start date
You shouldn't be able to shoot yourself out of any situation, either.
My point is that survival requires most if not all of these skills. Some are just more important than others.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
BTW, the PSN version of Fallout 4 is now available to preorder as of today. It just went up.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Precisely.
The correct non-lethal solution to dealing with a Raider is to avoid him entirely using sneak or, should they be carrying a quest item, pickpocketing them. I'm not asking for every conflict to be solved verbally, just without having to kill people.
Where does it say that, The Fallout Bible?
orthodoxy1095
Banned
I will like this very much. I love being able to avoid killing. More options for my playthrough are always better.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
I'm not really an RPG guy but I love fallout. Although I do play it like an action game and shoot everything generally. So pacifist runs and skill points mean very little to me.
Options are the best way to go though. People like playing the games many different ways, might as well accommodate as many as possible.
Options are the best way to go though. People like playing the games many different ways, might as well accommodate as many as possible.
I'm for alternative options, but I don't think they should always be viable or even possible. You shouldn't be able to kill, sneak or talk your way out of every situation just because that's how you want to play. Sometimes I think it's fine to have sub-optimal outcomes.
Don't get me wrong options are great. Giving the player the freedom and ability to tackle obstacles in a variety of ways and using inventive means to solve problems is a fantastic thing that games and RPGs especially are great for. But I do not believe that everything should have an alternative solution for however the player wants to achieve their goals. That's not how things actually work.
While games are more often than not wish fulfillments, RPGs are always touted as being above that to a degree. We get a character with certain strengths and weaknesses and have to abide by that. That should sometimes mean we cannot solve things the way we want to no matter how hard we try and in this instance kill in order to succeed or face failure.
And that is something that these games have generally been good about to one degree or another. Letting the player fail but continue on with their journey. And I would much rather they expand the ways in which we can fail a quest do to our shortcomings rather than come up with alternate ways we can complete them no matter how impracticable and unrealistic they may be just because I like sneaking a ton or making my character a real smooth talker.
Though even then sometimes failure is absolute, because even as great a feature as that is you can only fail so much and continue on and sometimes one failure, one bad outcome, is all you need to end things completely.
Deified Data
Banned
I think people who are asking for this are asking to shackle the game's encounter design and quest structure without really thinking.
Really? Every conflict? Sometimes that moral quandary can be a source of drama. How would a pacifist resolve Hard Luck Blues in New Vegas? Flood Vault 34 with radiation, immediately killing all trapped survivors but saving the destitute share croppers? Spoil the share croppers' farms to give the trapped survivors of Vault 34 a chance to escape, condemning the farmers to starvation and probable death for a protracted period? Ignore both, and have everyone's misfortune on your hands?
Sometimes shoehorning in a non-violent option to make the player feel warm and fuzzy just feels transparent - shit's not always going to work out. You're not playing s super hero.
I'm pretty sure by conflict they were referring to combat encounters. What you're describing is a moral conflict, the player is not tasked with headshotting anybody to score points.
Deified Data
Banned
This seems like nitpicking. The player is made fully aware of the implications of his or her actions. If you save the farms, for example, you are told in no uncertain terms that the survivors will die. You kill them sure as holding a gun to their head.
Again, I am not arguing against greater player choice or trying to infringe on anyone's agency. I'm just saying Fallout isn't the kind of game where you should realistically expect to make it to the end without at least being forced to defend yourself against aggressors. It wouldn't upset me if Bethesda actually made this possible, but I'm not going to be upset with them staying true to the feel of the genre.
The Lone Courier
Member
Can I talk down a deathclaw?
Can you not think of any other way to survive other than keeling over and dying? I swear, Fallout has taken a turn for the worse ever since Bethesda took over the series.
I mean in a situation where there is no option. Let's say the story puts you in a spot where X person must be killed. If you're dedicated to the role play, then it's game over for good.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I just want to poison. It's combat avoidance, sure but it is also smart. And a toxic wasteland should be chock full of poisons.
Pancakes
hot, steaming, as melted butter slips into the cracks, drizzled with sticky sweet syrup OH GOD
I mean, you can play super pacifist in FO3 and NV but it would probably be pretty boring having companions kill everything for you. Real champions play unarmed only characters.
Nah, but you can make them accidentally stumble into your power fist multiple times.
Nah, but you can make them accidentally stumble into your power fist multiple times.
Well, we can't do that in Fallout 3 either. But it's possible in New Vegas.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Pacificism and sub-optimal outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
I don't understand. Every moment-to-moment encounter can be conquered through brute force. If the player wants to solve every situation that way, they are catered for, so in some respects, that's exactly how things work.
Why not have a non-violent solution too? They don't always have to be the best outcome, sometimes they can be much worse than the alternative:
Say a family is being held hostage by super-mutants that are making some crazy demands that are impossible to meet. The family is begging you for help. Options:
1) You either fight and kill the mutants to free the family. Risky, but you'll have a chance to rescue everyone.
2) Cut the power and sneak in to free the hostages. As soon as the power is cut, the super-mutants freak out and start shooting which gets some of the hostages killed. You could sneak attack them before they do, of course, but you're a pacifist.
3) Try to reason with the super-mutants. Their logic is so twisted that the best you can do is rescue only one hostage. You have to choose.
4) Walk away, ending the quest and keeping your hands "clean".
Something like that. Just because pacifism in games is always the 'good' route doesn't mean it always has to be.
But every solution in 99% of games involves killing someone. It's not like it's a special or difficult thing, it is the most pervasive kind of encounter design. RPGs with their scope, variety of playstyles and multiple supporting mechanics should be the genre to offer us the opportunity to go beyond simply BANGBANGSLASHBOOM.
I'm not asking for no fail states. I'm asking for the option to take a non-violent route through an RPG, not decide the outcome of taking that route.
Firstly, I'm talking about moment-to-moment gameplay over and above story-based ethical decisions.
Secondly, I'm not saying that the non-violent solution has to have the best outcome. Again, just because games tend to go that route doesn't mean they have to.
I agree with you 100%.
That depends. Is it an intelligent deathclaw?
I had a Deathclaw as a companion in Fallout 2!
Gozer the Gozerian
Member
I want them to work VATS into the conversation system
disappeared
Banned
I'm still pissed Beth removed poisoned apples from Skyrim. They were so damned useful in Oblivion.
Easton Dark
Member
I think the only times something HAD TO BE KILLED in the main quest of Fallout 3 were the radroach in the beginning and the super mutants at the purifier. So people upset by this, use that as reference.
Also, note that I mentioned the main quest specifically. There were a few sidequests in 3 that demanded death like Reilly's Rangers. But for everyone saying they beat New Vegas pacifist, there were some sidequests in that which also could not be completed without killing, the first that comes to mind being We will all go together.
So, when Howard mentions not being able to play "The whole game" without violence, that could mean quite a bit. It could include the main quest, which Fallout 3 didn't do a horrible job with the non-violence part so I have some faith in that, or it could mean all sidequests. If it's all sidequests, I don't think any Fallout game has had 100% pacifist runs be a possibility unless you flat out avoid certain content.
Also, note that I mentioned the main quest specifically. There were a few sidequests in 3 that demanded death like Reilly's Rangers. But for everyone saying they beat New Vegas pacifist, there were some sidequests in that which also could not be completed without killing, the first that comes to mind being We will all go together.
So, when Howard mentions not being able to play "The whole game" without violence, that could mean quite a bit. It could include the main quest, which Fallout 3 didn't do a horrible job with the non-violence part so I have some faith in that, or it could mean all sidequests. If it's all sidequests, I don't think any Fallout game has had 100% pacifist runs be a possibility unless you flat out avoid certain content.
This seems ridiculous to me.
CraigerGamer
Member
From the same article...
So there is a new combat system that isn't VATs but contains VATs? Is the author saying the new system is VATs? I'm kind of confused by that quote.
So there is a new combat system that isn't VATs but contains VATs? Is the author saying the new system is VATs? I'm kind of confused by that quote.
Easton Dark
Member
I think it just means they have the same stuff as last time with first-person and third-person being options for real time combat, along with VATS.
The "new" part I'm assuming refers to how "good" they're saying they made the real-time combat this time. So it's new in a sense that it was made differently from their previous games to feel better.
I wholly agree. Though most games do reward equally, if not more so, for players using non-violent means to resolve issues. Just because something is harder to do or less direct doesn't mean it should the more optimal option default. So on that we can agree. All aspects of the game could use more nuance and varying degrees of success/failure.
I don't fully agree with this. While it is technically true you can kill your way through most encounters, the very nature of these games with enemy levels and strength in numbers can often mean that trying to resolve things guns a blazing can often result in a very difficult, if impossible depending on your level, undertaking. So quite often non-violent means are better if not outright necessary to proceed. That said I think they need to do a better job of crafting those kind of violence isn't an option situations to better force players to think outside the box for ways to tackle a situation beyond blowing everyone's head off.
This is more than fine and quest designs like this will work for the majority of cases the majority of the time. But I still don't think that this should be a hard rule applied to all situations. If a game designer can create a game that allows for all these options all the time that's great, but if they come upon a scenario they've crafted that is really great, but it can only be tackled one way to work I would much rather they keep it that way than try and rework in order to allow for some other means of resolution and possibly dilute the experience in the process. That goes for situations that require speech or sneaking or violence.
Not only that but I think it's important to sometimes force a player into a situation that they are possibly wholly unprepared for and force them to figure out a solution they may not be accustomed to. In an RPG of all games I think it's important to test yourself and your character, regardless of build type. It makes for interesting scenarios when your greatest strengths can end up being completely useless and you have to use other means in order to continue on. That goes equally for the smooth talking, the unseen ninja, or the pulverizing death machine.
No one is saying otherwise, just that games shouldn't be forced to provide for all play styles all the time. Options and diversity are good and the more of it the better. But certain instances may not allow for every option.
An all or nothing mentality seems kind of pointless and shallow to me. Every encounter and situation should be crafted to be the best it can be. Often times that means multiple options and means to resolve them, sometimes though it might mean only one. Would it be that big a deal if the game provided a number of quests that had outstanding non-violent resolutions, but still had a couple instances elsewhere that required it? Shouldn't we be focusing on quality not quantity? Especially for a feature only a handful of people will ever actually attempt, let alone see through to the end?
But you kind of are. You want to reach the very end of the game same as a player who killed in order to get there, but that may not always be possible. I doubt you would be very happy if 20 hours into your pacifist run you received a game over screen with ending slides and monologue talking about how you failed and this that and another thing happened to the world as a result when there were technically another 20 hours left in the game. But realistically that should be possible, just like it should be possible to kill vital NPCs like we could in Morrowind. Maybe that one last guy you sneaked past or convinced not to kill you went on to kill someone else important to the main plot and cut your journey then and there. The game let you do that, it was an option, but the outcome was one I doubt you'd care much for.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I want to poison well water. Just call me Pepe' the Well Poisoner.
I think he is just talking about the new vats. In the last two games vats used to pause the game but now it will only slow it down.
Last Hearth
Member
As much as I'm not a Bethesda fan in general, I think this is fair.
Complete pacifist runs are not realistic, and the hoops they'd have to jump through in game design to make that a possibility would IMO ruin the game.
There should be situations where you simply can't talk your way out of.
What I'd like to see that RPGs like this don't offer enough is enemies surrender. For example in Witcher 3 I'm level 30 Geralt and I have the best weapons available and I run into a group of level 12 bandit and of course the only way I can end the conflict is kill all of them. There are a couple of places where there are scripted conversations where I can intimidate people but level 12 bandits should see me coming and either run or beg for mercy. I don't like the fact in RPGs you often come up against enemies who are basically helpless against you but you never have the option of just telling them to get lost, you have to always kill them.
Complete pacifist runs are not realistic, and the hoops they'd have to jump through in game design to make that a possibility would IMO ruin the game.
There should be situations where you simply can't talk your way out of.
What I'd like to see that RPGs like this don't offer enough is enemies surrender. For example in Witcher 3 I'm level 30 Geralt and I have the best weapons available and I run into a group of level 12 bandit and of course the only way I can end the conflict is kill all of them. There are a couple of places where there are scripted conversations where I can intimidate people but level 12 bandits should see me coming and either run or beg for mercy. I don't like the fact in RPGs you often come up against enemies who are basically helpless against you but you never have the option of just telling them to get lost, you have to always kill them.
This is amazing. I must find more. ed: amazing
staticneuron
Member
You mean the bandits are supposed to see the number over Geralt head or see that one point sword is more expensive than the other?
You wouldn't question the logic of that?
And I hope people who are talking about pacifist runs are excluding encounters with radants, deathclaws, super mutants.... oh and humans who are totally insane. If not, one has to question how some would imagine a post apocalyptic setting to be like.
Pure Awesome.
Ok I am down for a beastmaster perk and friend of muties/crazies perk to make pacifist runs work.
EDIT: Only if you responses to crazy are in unintelligible gibberish and you still succeed.
TheRedSnifit
Member
I'm not really upset. I'm pretty sure it's impossible in the older games (at least in 2, anyways), and even in New Vegas, doing a no-kill run is impractical at best if you don't have the locations of hostile NPCs/creatures memorized and don't already know how everything will play out. I guess if you've run through the game a few times trying to do a pacifist run can give it an interesting dynamic, but I'd rather them focus on making the combat mechanics actually competent this time around.
NecromorphTX
Member
fuck it, i will kill everything.
Last Hearth
Member
The number is an RPG abstraction for power. What the bandits should realize is that they are horribly outclassed and have no chance to beat him, and hence back off.
Big reason why I'm reacting negatively to this is that I've never been overly fond of combat in Fallout. I liked doing the roundabout solutions to quests that involved investigating, pickpocketing, sneaking, speech checks and all that. That was the best part of New Vegas for me. The "bullet->head" quest process just isn't something that appeals to me very much in games and I prefer to leave that as a last resort for a character I'm playing as.
Now, I know that the developers aren't obligated to retrace New Vegas' steps--it's their game, they can do whatever they want. I don't even necessarily think it will be a worse game for it, that would be ludicrous of me to claim given I know almost nothing about the game. I do think it's fair to say that this type of design will make the game less fun for me though. RPGs that force me down aggressive paths are just less fun to me because they appeal to me less. So it is a bit disappointing to hear this on a personal level but I don't think it will affect the game's overall quality, just my personal enjoyment.
Like I'm not claiming that this isn't the right way to do RPGs or anything of the sort, just that the way they are doing it is not my favorite. But hey, I'm gonna be optimistic here. From that quote it could still totally mean that you can finish the main questline without killing anyone and only have to kill people if you want to finish sidequests(like New Vegas). Prooobably hoping for too much here but hey. Plus they did say you can avoid killing a lot, so that's definitely a good thing as far as the type of design I like goes. I mean hyperbole aside, even if it turns out you can't completely no-kill the main quest it does sound like they are putting a lot of effort into quest resolutions that aren't just use bullet on head. So I'll be optimistic about it!
...And if nothing else, I know there will be mods to make no-kill runs possible!
Now, I know that the developers aren't obligated to retrace New Vegas' steps--it's their game, they can do whatever they want. I don't even necessarily think it will be a worse game for it, that would be ludicrous of me to claim given I know almost nothing about the game. I do think it's fair to say that this type of design will make the game less fun for me though. RPGs that force me down aggressive paths are just less fun to me because they appeal to me less. So it is a bit disappointing to hear this on a personal level but I don't think it will affect the game's overall quality, just my personal enjoyment.
Like I'm not claiming that this isn't the right way to do RPGs or anything of the sort, just that the way they are doing it is not my favorite. But hey, I'm gonna be optimistic here. From that quote it could still totally mean that you can finish the main questline without killing anyone and only have to kill people if you want to finish sidequests(like New Vegas). Prooobably hoping for too much here but hey. Plus they did say you can avoid killing a lot, so that's definitely a good thing as far as the type of design I like goes. I mean hyperbole aside, even if it turns out you can't completely no-kill the main quest it does sound like they are putting a lot of effort into quest resolutions that aren't just use bullet on head. So I'll be optimistic about it!
...And if nothing else, I know there will be mods to make no-kill runs possible!
They don't have to tale pacifist players into mind. I don't care about that, but someone said that only because it was possible in Fallout 1 or 2, it doesn't mean it works in an open world game, well I just wanted to set them straight and tell them that it works in New Vegas.