Cheating is endemic in rpgs. Being forced not to reload puts you on disadvantage

[Black Angel]

Feel free to play the game however you want. You are still gaming the system if you reload to your advantage.

What's your point with this? That literally anyone reload to their own advantage? What about people who reload because they simply want to try again? Or perhaps your point is that, if anyone reload a save after a permanent failure, like death, and somehow pass the challenge that caused their previous failure before the reload, they're 'gaming the system'?

 

[Sigourn]

What's your point with this?

I'll tell you what I told Sykar: I don't know what you mean. I'm not making any "point", just like I would not be trying to make any point by saying the oceans are blue. It's just an observation.

What about people who reload because they simply want to try again?

Depends on what you mean by that.

Or perhaps your point is that, if anyone reload a save after a permanent failure, like death, and somehow pass the challenge that caused their previous failure before the reload, they're 'gaming the system'?

I've already stated reloading after dying is more than valid, because devs expect you to keep playing as opposed to throw the game into the trash bin. And likewise, because devs expect people to reload constantly (not just because they die, but because a lot of people dislike getting less than optimum results) they tend to make it harder on everyone else who doesn't want to savescum.

And I am also playing at a disadvantage due to my self imposed restrictions like only one rest in a dungeon.

That's on you. All the other things you mentioned are gaming the system indeed. But I think Baldur's Gate was poorly designed around the idea of people abusing the game, so if I want to keep my sanity I have no choice but to game the game myself.

Resting multiple times isn't gaming the system. On the other hand, savescumming so that your rest isn't interrupted by creatures IS gaming the system: you are using reloads to your advantage, as opposed to dealing with the consequences. Like reloading in the middle of a Fallout fight just because your attack missed and a companion was killed as a result.

My issue is not people playing the game how they want. My issue is developers accounting for them when making their games, as opposed to accounting for the people who don't savescum at all. Which explains why thievery in modern RPGs is such shit: the odds are heavily stacked since players will just reload if they fail, meaning those of us who DON'T reload will get caught so often we will stop stealing altogether. Unless the game is trying to push the narrative that stealing is bad and you should follow the path of righteousness, I think this is something an RPG developer should avoid doing.

 

[Black Angel]

I'll tell you what I told Sykar: I don't know what you mean. I'm not making any "point", just like I would not be trying to make any point by saying the oceans are blue. It's just an observation.

Huh? But Sykar's post you quoted there is, and I'd assume, that games are just games. The sole intended purpose of saving and reloading is so that players can try again, and that's what his point is. And then you came along saying some things like, "You are still gaming the system if you reload to your advantage." Perhaps I misunderstood you, because that sentence gave me an impression that you are accusing Sykar, and even people in general, of gaming the system by reloading to his advantage, completely ignoring people who reload for other reasons like simply want to try again.

What about people who reload because they simply want to try again?

Depends on what you mean by that.

It means what it means. I'm asking you if you think people who reload simply because they want to try again as people who're also 'gaming the system by reloading to their advantage'.

Or perhaps your point is that, if anyone reload a save after a permanent failure, like death, and somehow pass the challenge that caused their previous failure before the reload, they're 'gaming the system'?

I've already stated reloading after dying is more than valid, because devs expect you to keep playing as opposed to throw the game into the trash bin. And likewise, because devs expect people to reload constantly (not just because they die, but because a lot of people dislike getting less than optimum results) they tend to make it harder on everyone else who doesn't want to savescum.

I think this is where you, and ultimately OP, lost me. You guys made up a problem that wasn't even there, or the problem wasn't really a problem in the first place, or perhaps you guys made the wrong premise, call it whatever because unfortunately I'm not sure how to call it in English, but this is how I take your argument here:

#1: Devs expect people to keep playing as opposed to throw the game into the trash bin by providing a feature where players can reload a save
#2: Devs expect people to reload constantly, no matter for what reasons (whether they die and/or because they dislike getting less than 'optimum' results)
#3: Therefore, devs make it harder for everyone else who doesn't want to savescum, because the reload feature is being abused by people who played their own copy of a game and in no way affected the copy of the game being played by these 'everyone else who doesn't want to savescum'.

Like, what the fucking fuck, man? Maybe you didn't really mean for #1 and #2 being related in any way that make it seems like #3 is the conclusion, but you'd better tell me if #2 and ultimately #3 is actual problems being present in whatever RPGs we're talking about in this forum. Because for all things that are holy, I can't, for the love of God, comprehend how these 'problems' are actual problems in any RPGs I've ever played like the aforementioned Fallout.

 

[Roqua]

I just noticed that FO 1.5 doesn't replace FO2, so I have my saves from my last playthrough. My last save, in 2244, is after some encounter on the map. I get in my car and drive and almost immediately get a screen with the message Arroya has starved.. I knew I wasn't crazy.

 

[Sigourn]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, because that sentence gave me an impression that you are accusing Sykar, and even people in general, of gaming the system by reloading to his advantage, completely ignoring people who reload for other reasons like simply want to try again.

Yeah, I probably wasn't clear. I use the reload function myself for different purposes. I also don't know what you mean by "try again": it could mean "the fight is going badly, I want to try again" or alternatively "I've already won the fight, but I would like to try again".

#1: Devs expect people to keep playing as opposed to throw the game into the trash bin by providing a feature where players can reload a save
#2: Devs expect people to reload constantly, no matter for what reasons (whether they die and/or because they dislike getting less than 'optimum' results)
#3: Therefore, devs make it harder for everyone else who doesn't want to savescum, because the reload feature is being abused by people who played their own copy of a game and in no way affected the copy of the game being played by these 'everyone else who doesn't want to savescum'.

Like, what the fucking fuck, man? Maybe you didn't really mean for #1 and #2 being related in any way that make it seems like #3 is the conclusion, but you'd better tell me if #2 and ultimately #3 is actual problems being present in whatever RPGs we're talking about in this forum. Because for all things that are holy, I can't, for the love of God, comprehend how these 'problems' are actual problems in any RPGs I've ever played like the aforementioned Fallout.

It's more along the lines of:

1. Devs provide a reload function.
2. People game the system by abusing said function.
3. Therefore, devs design their games around the fact people will abuse their game.

I do find #3 to be a problem in different RPGs I've played. Thing is, #3 isn't a logical solution to #2. It's just what devs choose to do. A logical solution would be to prevent people from being able to abuse the system in the first place.

 

[Whiny-Butthurt-Liberal]

Endemic means "only found in a specific area". Do you really think that cheating is only found in RPGs? Or did you mean to say "epidemic".

 

[Black Angel]

Yeah, I probably wasn't clear. I use the reload function myself for different purposes. I also don't know what you mean by "try again": it could mean "the fight is going badly, I want to try again" or alternatively "I've already won the fight, but I would like to try again".

Fair enough. By try again, I meant the former. I've already kinda specified it in my first post, but I should've specified it again.

It's more along the lines of:

1. Devs provide a reload function.
2. People game the system by abusing said function.
3. Therefore, devs design their games around the fact people will abuse their game.

I do find #3 to be a problem in different RPGs I've played. Thing is, #3 isn't a logical solution to #2. It's just what devs choose to do. A logical solution would be to prevent people from being able to abuse the system in the first place.

That's.... exactly where I think you're wrong. Not only #3 isn't a logical solution to #2, it wasn't even a logical conclusion to the premise #1 and #2 in the first place. How on earth did you come to the conclusion that devs designed their games around the fact that people will abuse their game, which in this case the reload function? I thought you were right when you said devs provided a reload function with the purpose of getting people to keep playing instead of throwing the game into the trash bin just because they arrived at a fail state, but you had to ruin it by correlating it to some cases where people reload constantly, "not just because they die, but because a lot of people dislike getting less than optimum results" that it 'make it harder for everyone else who doesn't want to savescum'. I don't understand, how did people like that, who are likely to play their own copy of the game, abusing reload function to their heart's content, even managed to affect YOU who are playing your own copy of the game, who don't want to savescum and, therefore, don't need to abuse reload function in the first place?

Again, back to the premises: Devs provided a reload function with the purpose of getting people to keep playing their game instead of throwing it to the trash bin the moment they arrive at a fail-state. From here and onward, this function will be used by two (or maybe more) kinds of people: (A) People who will use the reload function according to its intended purpose, so that they will try again when they arrive at a fail-state. On the other side, there are (B) people who abused the reload function, not just because they arrive at a fail-state, but because they didn't achieve an optimal state. If you happened to be people (A), then that means devs' intended purpose is achieved. If the game is being played by people (B).... can you tell me again how did people (B) affected people (A) in any way, if at all?

 

[FeelTheRads]

even managed to affect YOU who are playing your own copy of the game, who don't want to savescum and, therefore, don't need to abuse reload function in the first place?

He got pwned by the bosses of both IWD and Fallout 2 (well, basically he didn't win on the first try therefore it's not fair!) and thinks it's because the games were designed for savescumming.

I do believe he is right though that, especially today, game designers try to limit what the players can do, and trying to limit save abuse if part of that.
And, as I said before, this is somehow seen as a good thing by newfag retards. Hurr durr muh design and banalce. It used to be that the people wanted to have as much freedom as possible in games. Now it's all "woah, the game didn't let me do that! the designer thought of that! so smart and designer!".

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Sigourn]

Fair enough. By try again, I meant the former. I've already kinda specified it in my first post, but I should've specified it again.

I don't see any harm done in that. It's an issue only when people repeatedly savescum during the course of a battle (this happens; just because Codexers don't do it doesn't mean it isn't true), because developers then start to think of ways to fight this.

I don't understand, how did people like that, who are likely to play their own copy of the game, abusing reload function to their heart's content, even managed to affect YOU who are playing your own copy of the game, who don't want to savescum and, therefore, don't need to abuse reload function in the first place?

Because you are assuming I'm talking about a process that began and ended with Fallout. It didn't begin with Fallout, and it certainly hasn't ended yet. Devs don't create videogames in a vacuum: they look at other games, look at implemented features, see how they work, and use that as a reference for the game they make.

Don't listen to FeelTheRads. Especially because

well, basically he didn't win on the first try therefore it's not fair!

vastly, VASTLY underrates how broken the Frank Horrigan fight is. There was no skill involved in fighting Frank Horrigan in my particular case (unable to hack the computers and unable to get the Enclave soldiers to side with me). It was just me against the RNG, hoping Frank wouldn't simply kill me with a critical hit.

In other words, it was a fight that needed to be savescummed if I wanted to preserve my sanity. I could have won without savescumming, sure. It would have taken me... what, over 100 tries? Such is "difficulty" in Fallout 2: a fight against RNG and HP bloated bosses.

I also think Beholders in Icewind Dale were a retarded enemy that encouraged savescumming too: if your characters happened to die (i.e. be "destroyed"), then it would be very foolish not to reload the game. Especially considering once in the Trials of the Luremaster, you couldn't go back. For a considerable amount of players, being reduced to a four-men party (if not three) could potentially turn the DLC unwinnable. Because the most dangerous aspect of Beholders is thus rendered moot by savescumming, you end up with an enemy that may as well not be there.

I go back to what Sykar said earlier: if we play games to have fun, I'd rather cheat my way through Frank Horrigan than spend hours upon hours upon hours upon hours doing the repetitive task of mindlessly attacking him and healing in between just to die to a couple of hits.

 

[Roqua]

I just noticed that FO 1.5 doesn't replace FO2, so I have my saves from my last playthrough. My last save, in 2244, is after some encounter on the map. I get in my car and drive and almost immediately get a screen with the message Arroya has starved.. I knew I wasn't crazy.

Strange Fellow - I really don't know how to explain it in simpler terms but I'll try since you gave me the WTF I am reading button. I'll break it up into small bits so hopefully you will be able to pinpoint with exact precision any bit you do not understand.

In FO 2
In the year of our lord 2244
My last save is on a random place on the map
After some random encounter I don't remember
When I leave the map and start driving
No matter where I drive towards
The game ends with a message about Arrayo starving to death (or something along those lines)
Again, in 2044
FO2
Well before 13 years from the game's start


I just did some searching and I guess this could be from the restoration mod. Or I could have changed the date when installing the mod for it. I honestly don't know and can't find anything to show if I changed the time before the game ends or what I changed it to if I did. I am positive this is the ending that happens to me the last time I played (since I still have the save and it still happens), and at least the time before that.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I just noticed that FO 1.5 doesn't replace FO2, so I have my saves from my last playthrough. My last save, in 2244, is after some encounter on the map. I get in my car and drive and almost immediately get a screen with the message Arroya has starved.. I knew I wasn't crazy.

Strange Fellow - I really don't know how to explain it in simpler terms but I'll try since you gave me the WTF I am reading button. I'll break it up into small bits so hopefully you will be able to pinpoint with exact precision any bit you do not understand.

In FO 2
In the year of our lord 2244
My last save is on a random place on the map
After some random encounter I don't remember
When I leave the map and start driving
No matter where I drive towards
The game ends with a message about Arrayo starving to death (or something along those lines)
Again, in 2044
FO2
Well before 13 years from the game's start


I just did some searching and I guess this could be from the restoration mod. Or I could have changed the date when installing the mod for it. I honestly don't know and can't find anything to show if I changed the time before the game ends or what I changed it to if I did. I am positive this is the ending that happens to me the last time I played (since I still have the save and it still happens), and at least the time before that.

Yep, that's the work of a mod. It's not the restoration project, though. Could it be the Megamod? I've never tried that one. From the wiki:

• Find a way to save the harvest in Arroyo.

Bring the AFR poison from Klamath (in the Rat Tunnels) and give it to the Elder. 500 XP
100 XP extra if you have also collected useful info about the wasteland (Outdoorsman 60+)
50 XP if you have no useful info (Only information about Klamath).
There is a time limit to do this quest. If you don't complete it in time, the game will end!

 

[Black Angel]

for the record ive never brought determinism to discussion. Nor did i claim that devs are at fault and should force anything. Nor that i want to stand against player enjoyment of the game.

What i claim is: reloading failures that were left to chance through the game is like playing on easier difficulty. Hence such difficulty wasnt included by devs its cheating/gaming the system/whatever you call it.
Its like playing a game of flipping a coin with reload. System gives you 50% chance of success. If you keep reloading every time you dont see heads, you change problem into: what is a chance of scoring head if you flip a coin indefinitely.

If you want to argue, start with that without putting words in my mouth.

At this point, I'm only meme-ing your deterministic system > RNG bullshit, but in this case I'm legit baffled what's really your and Sigourn's point. And see, those bullshit I bolded in your post? Are those factual problems for YOUR enjoyment of whatever the fuck the games we're talking about? How on earth it's like 'playing on easier difficulty' just because people were reloading when they happened to arrive at a fail-state that were 'left to chance'? And you actually specified 'left to chance', hence why I can't stop thinking this is just one of your deterministic system > RNG bullshit coming up again.
And now, "keep reloading everytime you don't see heads" I'll assume as an analogy to people abusing reload function everytime they don't get a critical hit, aka 'optimal state'. How is this a problem for YOUR enjoyment of the game, and how is this a problem for devs when the intended purpose of reloading function is so that people can keep playing the game instead of throwing the game into the trash bin the moment they arrived a fail-state, even if the reason for that is, in your words, "left to chance"?

In what fucking shit of games devs actually tried to address these 'problems' and why should I care?

It's an issue only when people repeatedly savescum during the course of a battle (this happens; just because Codexers don't do it doesn't mean it isn't true), because developers then start to think of ways to fight this.

Because you are assuming I'm talking about a process that began and ended with Fallout. It didn't begin with Fallout, and it certainly hasn't ended yet. Devs don't create videogames in a vacuum: they look at other games, look at implemented features, see how they work, and use that as a reference for the game they make.

Again, my question I typed above: what developers start to try addressing this 'problem' and why should we care?

Don't listen to FeelTheRads. Especially because

well, basically he didn't win on the first try therefore it's not fair!

vastly, VASTLY underrates how broken the Frank Horrigan fight is. There was no skill involved in fighting Frank Horrigan in my particular case (unable to hack the computers and unable to get the Enclave soldiers to side with me). It was just me against the RNG, hoping Frank wouldn't simply kill me with a critical hit.

In other words, it was a fight that needed to be savescummed if I wanted to preserve my sanity. I could have won without savescumming, sure. It would have taken me... what, over 100 tries? Such is "difficulty" in Fallout 2: a fight against RNG and HP bloated bosses.

So, it's devs fault that you happened to make a shitty build?

To be fair, there are ways to improve Fallout 2's finale; addressing the fact that YOU happened to be one in many who had to savescum it isn't one of them.

Also, you haven't addressed The Brazilian Slaughter's reply to your argument about Fallout 2, so I'm just going to quote him here

To be fair, you're fighting a genetically-tweaked Super Mutant Cyborg in Power Armor pumped full of drugs. Your character is just a dude, at best, a slightly enhanced dude. Horrigan is not even human anymore. They should have made the fight harder.

I actually think that set-up is pretty clever, and kind of a series subversion: You can't ALWAYS get out of conflicts with speech and stealth, but you can use it to make them easier.

There's many ways that fight can go:

1. You fight Frank, the soldiers AND the Turrets. Hardest fight in the series.
2. You fight Frank and the Turrets, soldiers are on your side. Hard but doable, especially if you have your own party alongside the soldiers.
3. You fight Frank and the Soldiers, turrets are on your side. Not hard at all because you can just heal himself with super stims and then start crit-shooting Frank.

There's also the fact you can just trash the turrets at the start, but that's kinda meta-gamey because they don't start hostile and you have zero idea that the end-game fight will happen there. Which also results in:
4. You fight Frank and the Soldiers. No Turrets.
5. You fight Frank alongside the Soldiers. No turrets.

Also, if you went your way slaughtering things through the area and didn't clear the barracks area before, you will waste time on the barracks and will lose clock time. So, the Horrigan fight will become a timed fight. Last time I finished the game, I think I had two minutes until the Oil Rig blew because I went through the entire barracks shooting, and then to Horrigan.

Enclave Oil Rig is also such a cool area that it feels fulfilling doing it as any build. Its also the ultimate OG Fallout combat romp that makes Mariposa and the Cathedral look easy - every single Enclave Trooper has 200 HP, APA and a end-game level weapon (Gauss Rifle, Turbo Plasma, Pulse weapons, Rocket Launchers, Vindicator Minigun, etc), not to mention the Turrets and killbots.

I go back to what Sykar said earlier: if we play games to have fun, I'd rather cheat my way through Frank Horrigan than spend hours upon hours upon hours upon hours doing the repetitive task of mindlessly attacking him and healing in between just to die to a couple of hits.

Again, I don't see how devs are in the fault here because you happened to make really shitty build, or that reloading function is 'broken' because it can be abused by people who don't get to optimal state in 1 turn, or how your specific experience with Fallout 2's finale have any relation to devs 'starting to think of ways to fight savescumming'.

 

[FeelTheRads]

hence why I can't stop thinking this is just one of your deterministic system > RNG bullshit coming up again.

Dude, it's not about how deterministic > RNG. It's just about how in non-deterministic games you're cheating by default and they're all like flipping coins as opposed to deterministic games which are like totally fair and superior.
Totally different discussion.

Its like playing a game of flipping a coin with reload. System gives you 50% chance of success. If you keep reloading every time you dont see heads, you change problem into: what is a chance of scoring head if you flip a coin indefinitely.

No, it's actually like you're being retarded. Just like I said, a deranged savescummer projecting his disease on everyone else.
Like 10 fucking threads already about your fucking disease, each one more retarded than the other.

Durrr guiese did u know rng numbers on the computar are not really rng hahaha that means determinstic>>>>>rng why cant u accept what i say as truth plz stop me from me savescumming. ((((

 

[Sigourn]

In what fucking shit of games devs actually tried to address these 'problems' and why should I care?

Josh Sawyer stated skill checks in New Vegas consists of yes/no values because people reloaded the game during skill checks and Obsidian wanted to get rid of that. In addition, to let players have some leeway when doing quests, they added skill magazines.

In other words, the people who reload fucked up those who wanted to play normally, because:

1. A completely retarded system was implemented in its place.
2. An equally retarded system was implemented on top of it, that rendered builds sort of pointless because you can just read a magic magazine to get better for a short amount of time. Why is it retarded? I don't know, maybe because the magazine goes poof?

And that was with skill checks in DIALOGUE. And this is a developer who said it, so there's no better proof than that.

So, it's devs fault that you happened to make a shitty build?

A combat build is now a shitty build?

This is why Fallout 2 is singlehandedly the most overrated RPG of all time. People actually defend bad game design. A roleplaying game. Where beating the boss with a combat build is not possible unless you spend 5 hours on it or savescum. Unbelievable. I wouldn't put it past some retard to think I'm saying Fallout 2 is shit. I'm just saying the final fight is, arguably, the worst final boss I've ever encountered in a videogame. Gothic's Sleeper was bad too, but because it was disappointing (far too easy, didn't really require you to apply what you had learned in the game thus far).

 

[Sigourn]

Also, you haven't addressed The Brazilian Slaughter's reply to your argument about Fallout 2, so I'm just going to quote him here

I'm pretty sure I already have, but anyhow:

To be fair, you're fighting a genetically-tweaked Super Mutant Cyborg in Power Armor pumped full of drugs. Your character is just a dude, at best, a slightly enhanced dude. Horrigan is not even human anymore. They should have made the fight harder.

Bringing realism into a videogame is stupid. Without Power Armor, a Deathclaw should tear you to pieces in Fallout 1. And it doesn't. Not only your character takes hits like a champ by staying in one place (last time I checked, just because you are wearing body armor doesn't mean a lion will scratch you like a kitten: the motherfucker will throw you around). You also don't get a single scratch.

I actually think that set-up is pretty clever, and kind of a series subversion: You can't ALWAYS get out of conflicts with speech and stealth, but you can use it to make them easier.

This is all good if you have a Speech or Stealth build. But I didn't. So I had to:

fight Frank, the soldiers AND the Turrets. Hardest fight in the series.

What Brazilian Slaughter doesn't mention here is that "hard" doesn't mean "challenging". If the Frank Horrigan fight was challenging, I wouldn't mind. But to put things into perspective:

1. I had no companions. They had all died. Why? Because I don't savescum companions dying.
   
2. It's me, one single character, fighting against another 4 (if not five; can't recall if the squad consists of three or four Enclave soldiers) and a bunch of turrets.
3. When it's you against so many enemies, chances are you will get critically hit much more often than you critically hit the enemy. And that means you are dead.

I savescummed the turrets and the squad. And even then I couldn't fight Frank Horrigan without dying fairly quickly. Sure, I could have done the fight "legally" (i.e. relying on absolute luck), but that would require Horrigan to never land critical hits on me. Otherwise he would kill me faster than I could heal.

If people actually think the Frank Horrigan fight is good game design, they are retards who shouldn't ever make a videogame. And if anyone actually thinks so in this thread, I'm not interested in discussing this further.

Since FeelTheRads brought it up, I think the Luremaster DLC for Icewind Dale was absolute retardism because of this: if you want to play the game without savescumming, the average Icewind Dale player (i.e. those who want to play the game) won't make it to the end. You are EXPECTED to reload if one of your party members die, otherwise the DLC turns into something practically unwinnable unless you have all the knowledge required to beat the final guy (and if you do, this means you wouldn't have lost all those party members anyhow).

I do think the Luremaster was a challenging fight for me, and I was really happy to defeat him legally. But I still think it's awful game design to expect the player to reload to bypass companion death. You can win New Vegas with your companions dying. Trying to do the same in Icewind Dale... you better know the game inside and out. Otherwise, you are forced to savescum. And that's awful game design.

EDIT:

Of course, you could argue devs expected experienced players to play Icewind Dale (and then Trials of the Luremaster). But this is not Wizardry IV, which expected you to have played every Wizardry game and knew the games like the fordyce spots on your dick. When your game encourages savescumming to anyone but very experienced players, you know something is wrong; especially when you make a game for the wider audience and not the few masochists that want to play as Werdna.

 

[Black Angel]

Josh Sawyer stated skill checks in New Vegas consists of yes/no values because people reloaded the game during skill checks and Obsidian wanted to get rid of that. In addition, to let players have some leeway when doing quests, they added skill magazines.

In other words, the people who reload fucked up those who wanted to play normally, because:

1. A completely retarded system was implemented in its place.
2. An equally retarded system was implemented on top of it, that rendered builds sort of pointless because you can just read a magic magazine to get better for a short amount of time. Why is it retarded? I don't know, maybe because the magazine goes poof?

And that was with skill checks in DIALOGUE. And this is a developer who said it, so there's no better proof than that.

Wait, weren't we talking about abusing saving-reloading function in COMBAT gameplay mechanics? Where, supposedly people were abusing reloading function every time they didn't get to an 'optimal state', like getting a critical hit for example? And, supposedly, this is a problem in TURN-BASED RPGs?

Personally, I'm not that hot for New Vegas's stats/skills checks system, because despite of them writing completely different lines for every (guaranteed) failed checks, they ruined it by showing the threshold. Also, people reloading during skill checks seemed like the problem originated from Fallout 3, I'm not sure if there's anything related to Fallout 1&2's in this regard.

In the end, official Fallout is dead long ago, so I can't say I would care nor would I acknowledge this as a 'problem', because in any other game I've been playing and looking forward to everything seemed normal, aka reloading function is there as intended.

A combat build is now a shitty build?

How on earth did you came up with a combat build so shitty, you had to savescum the fight? I'm pretty sure at that point, you took Sniper or Slayer perk, depending on whether you made a melee or ranged build. At that point, any reasonable player would be using aimed shot to render Frank blind and/or crippled.

Why did you reload in this fight? An instant death? A companion death? What's your stats, skills, and perks? Because I can't imagine how anyone wouldn't have a build that's able to crit 100% of the time at that point thanks to endgame perks. Also, even if you can't hack the turrets manually, you can just use the presidential access key to at least deactivate the turrets so they won't interfere with the intimate moment between you and Frank. Before initiating conversation with him, one can just sneak about or even hug the wall to access the terminal before the fight.

To be fair, you're fighting a genetically-tweaked Super Mutant Cyborg in Power Armor pumped full of drugs. Your character is just a dude, at best, a slightly enhanced dude. Horrigan is not even human anymore. They should have made the fight harder.

Bringing realism into a videogame is stupid. Without Power Armor, a Deathclaw should tear you to pieces in Fallout 1. And it doesn't. Not only your character takes hits like a champ by staying in one place (last time I checked, just because you are wearing body armor doesn't mean a lion will scratch you like a kitten: the motherfucker will throw you around). You also don't get a single scratch.

Why is it that whenever someone is talking about verisimilitude, as in the setting having internal consistency within itself, someone had to ruin it and mistook it as talking about realism? What are you, Pete Hines?

No, silly, a genetically-tweaked Super Mutant Cyborg in Power Armor pumped full of drugs isn't realism, but verisimilitude. It's the reason why he's the hardest fight in the game, because he's the end boss. Part of the fight isn't only trying to brute-force your way to victory against a genetically-tweaked Super Mutant Cyborg in Power Armor pumped full of drugs, you have to do it smartly by not only maximizing your chance to hit him AND the hardest you can do, but also by minimizing his chance to hit you AND also weaken his attacks if they connect. Use Psycho, aim for the eyes and arms, use all the options available especially to a combat build.

I actually think that set-up is pretty clever, and kind of a series subversion: You can't ALWAYS get out of conflicts with speech and stealth, but you can use it to make them easier.

This is all good if you have a Speech or Stealth build. But I didn't. So I had to:

fight Frank, the soldiers AND the Turrets. Hardest fight in the series.

What Brazilian Slaughter doesn't mention here is that "hard" doesn't mean "challenging". If the Frank Horrigan fight was challenging, I wouldn't mind. But to put things into perspective:

1. I had no companions. They had all died. Why? Because I don't savescum companions dying.
   
2. It's me, one single character, fighting against another 4 (if not five; can't recall if the squad consists of three or four Enclave soldiers) and a bunch of turrets.
3. When it's you against so many enemies, chances are you will get critically hit much more often than you critically hit the enemy. And that means you are dead.

I savescummed the turrets and the squad. And even then I couldn't fight Frank Horrigan without dying fairly quickly. Sure, I could have done the fight "legally" (i.e. relying on absolute luck), but that would require Horrigan to never land critical hits on me. Otherwise he would kill me faster than I could heal.

Wait wait wait, did you somehow managed to pull the ENTIRE combination of enemies on you, or not? Because #3 implied that, but then you mentioned that you savescummed the turrets and the squad, which means you should at least be dealing with the squad first, no? Because if that's the case, then it should be:

1. Dealing with the squad
2. Dealing with the turrets
3. Dealing with Frank

If you're playing a full-fledged combat build who doesn't have speech and sneak and was unable to hack anything, you were initiating every single fight, right? Or did you perchance walked straight into the middle of the squad, in a position where you're completely surrounded and had combat started there? I can't remember if there's any turret around the position where the squad first waited for you, but even if there's any you shouldn't be getting anywhere close to them.

And when dealing with the turrets, again, use the presidential access key to deactivate the turrets, no need to savescum it.

If people actually think the Frank Horrigan fight is good game design, they are retards who shouldn't ever make a videogame. And if anyone actually thinks so in this thread, I'm not interested in discussing this further.

The fight itself isn't anything remarkable, but like The Brazilian Slaughter said, the whole setup leading to it is what's good. Like I mentioned, even a character who are unable to hack can at least use the presidential access key to deactivate the turrets.

And here comes where it could be improved. To be honest, I'm not actually sure if you need to use sneak to get to the terminal right in front of Frank, but even if you don't have any sneak you could just abuse the ENTER COMBAT mechanic to approach the terminal, and hug the wall all the time while doing it. Also, the fight with Frank won't start unless you shoot first OR you initiate and finish conversation with him. This is the part where the finale is flawed, because for some reason Frank is allowing you to approach the terminal and do whatever you want. Of course, it could also be taken as all that Frank was seeing is a fellow Enclave soldier doing whatever with the terminal, because what are you doing there not donning the Advanced Power Armor?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Where beating the boss with a combat build is not possible unless you spend 5 hours on it or savescum.

Yeah, sorry bro, that's just bullshit.

I know it's a newfag thing to assume it's the game not them, so how about you post that "combat build"?

A real combat build can kill Horrigan in a couple of turns. Now, for a first time you're probably not gonna stumble into one of those, but still... impossible? Bullshit.

It's hard to admit failure, but it is what it is, bro.

Since @FeelTheRads brought it up, I think the Luremaster DLC for Icewind Dale was absolute retardism because of this: if you want to play the game without savescumming, the average Icewind Dale player (i.e. those who want to play the game) won't make it to the end. You are EXPECTED to reload if one of your party members die, otherwise the DLC turns into something practically unwinnable unless you have all the knowledge required to beat the final guy (and if you do, this means you wouldn't have lost all those party members anyhow).

I do think the Luremaster was a challenging fight for me, and I was really happy to defeat him legally. But I still think it's awful game design to expect the player to reload to bypass companion death. You can win New Vegas with your companions dying. Trying to do the same in Icewind Dale... you better know the game inside and out. Otherwise, you are forced to savescum. And that's awful game design.

Dude, no, sorry.

1. In IWD they are characters you create, not companions.
2. If you think reloading on party characters dying is "save-scumming" you are retarded.

I mean, how do you decide which are the companions and which are not? Is "your" character then one you choose to name "Faggot McNewfag" and if that one dies then reloading is not save-scumming? How the fuck does this work?

How do YOU want it to work then? The game in fact allows you to start with 1 character... so lol at "expecting you to reload to bypass companion death". Then what? Do you want the game to scale down whenever you lose a party member just so you can pretend to be cool because you didn't reload? What is the point of having the party members die then?
If you don't want to reload it's your own fucking business and you should deal with it. Why the fuck should the game be catered to you?
Why, is it a problem if this game is for "experienced players"? Which is not, btw, you should join Obsidian's testing team, you'd fit right it. But let's say it is... what's wrong with that? Why can't there be games for experienced players? Why does everything have to cater to newfags who don't want to save because it's not cool?

Jesus fucking christ, newfags and their retarded push-button-to-win games. If I have to reload then it's not fair and it's save-scumming waah waah waah.

Hell, I'd say that not reloading on companion death in Fallout 2 is also a pretty dumbfuck way of playing, but whatever, you play as you want. Calling that save-scumming is also retarded, though.

When the fuck is reloading not save-scumming according to newfags?

Like seriously, do you think that the newfag games that are built so you can finish them in a go are the better alternative? Do you perhaps think that checkpoints are not savescumming because you don't manually load the game yourself?

When do you think the fights are fair and not designed for save-scumming? Let me guess... when you win them, right? Then surely you won because of your amazing skills. But if you lose it's because of bad game design. Fuck off.

And I didn't remember you crying about the Luremaster. So that's another one on the list. The one I remembered you crying about was Belhifet.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[FeelTheRads]

do i need to defend statement that rpg with rng invovled is game of chance?

Yes, you do. Because it's retarded.
Because you don't fucking get it and reduce everything to flipping coins and reloading. I don't know what coins you use, but typically coins don't look like dice, nor do you get modifiers when flipping a coin. There's no face+1, for example.

And because you don't get it that actually it's not intended to reload on every non-optimal result. So only a deranged individual like you would think that the ability to reload invalidates dice rolls.

Just clearing delusion of players thinking that they actually played on advertised difficulty.

Oh good, thank you so much for clearing that. Got it, all non-deterministic games are easy cheat-mode, all deterministic games are amazing real and fair experiences but this thread is not about deterministic>RNG at all.

 

[FeelTheRads]

You went through the game with only single reload on highest diff. Your build must be awesome.
Except its not how it works. You have rigged game in your favor.

Except that yes, that's exactly how it works. And yes, that build is probably awesome.

How in the fuck a build that only needed to reload once is not good? Because it failed once? Jesus, you are a fucking imbecile.

 

[Saduj]

What I don't understand about all the save-scumming threads is that nobody is forced to save scum. Ever. If you don't like it, don't do it. Problem solved.

I think that saving during combat and then loading that save after an unsuccessful round is cheap to the extent that it defeats the purpose of playing the game. So I never do it. As a result, I could care less if a game allows saves during combat.

But I will save before combat and start fights over when I'm losing. This rarely has anything to do with missing a few high percent hit chances. I mean yeah, if I consistently miss during a given fight I'm going eventually lose and have to try again. But a few "extra" misses rarely makes that big of a difference. When I end up reloading and starting a fight over, it is usually due to some bad decision like rushing into crossfire because I underestimated the enemy. This happens a lot in games where most of the fights are cake walks and then I run into something that requires a little bit of strategy.

The only recent exception I can think of is Dungeon Rats. And that was really only in fights where taking down certain enemies very quickly was crucial to winning. If I need to take out the enemy alchemist on the first turn and I knock him down with a bomb and then Roxanna misses shooting him in the face twice with a 95% chance to hit, I would restart right away. But that is only because I know from experience that my failure to kill that guy on turn 1 is going to result in my losing the fight.

 

[Damned Registrations]

What I don't understand about all the save-scumming threads is that nobody is forced to save scum. Ever. If you don't like it, don't do it. Problem solved.

Then you're too shortsighted to see the impact it has on game design when save scumming is accepted as the norm. Nobody's forcing you to spend money on DLC either. Does it seem like a good thing when everyone does and games get butchered into a million shitty pieces? Is pay to win totally fine because losing is just as good an option?

 

[Saduj]

Then you're too shortsighted to see the impact it has on game design when save scumming is accepted as the norm. Nobody's forcing you to spend money on DLC either. Does it seem like a good thing when everyone does and games get butchered into a million shitty pieces? Is pay to win totally fine because losing is just as good an option?

How is losing just as good an option as winning? Pay to win is shitty design because its not interesting to play and for people who get hooked, it affects their real lives financially.

I like being able to save my game at any point because I want to be able to get up and go do something else on a moment's notice. So do other people. That is why save anywhere is a popular game feature. I'm not aware of any game that designed a save feature with the specific intent of allowing people to circumvent sub optimal outcomes. Yes, some people will do it but that is really their problem and I don't see how developers wasting time with elaborate systems to avoid that is going to make the core game any better. If anything, that's a huge waste of time that is better spent elsewhere.

 

[Damned Registrations]

How is losing just as good an option as winning?

How is failing a pickpocket attempt and turning a friendly NPC hostile, or not making the attempt at all, just as good an option as succeeding in stealing an important key?

There's no need for an elaborate system at all. 1 save slot, erased on loading, backed up in case of the game crashing. Almost nobody savescums games built that way, while pretty much everyone savescums games like the infinity engine games or fallout or elder scrolls, because those games were designed with that in mind.