“I built this city... literally...”

The recent survival mode seems to add some great needs for survival, including rebalancing the odds by making everything more vulnerable to damage, which is a great way to do it.

There is one small issue though, your reduced carry weight and inability to fast travel (legitimately that is, there are still tricks around it from what I read). Now this wouldn't be much of an issue in the game itself, you just have to manage what you carry better. But the problem is one of the games components, settlement building.

The big point about it is, you still have to carry everything for settlement building on your own.

I already made a suggestion on the Fallout reddit what could solve this, having designated dropoff points for your stuff which is then automatically converted into materials for settlements and dropped off into a connected one and scavenger troops that scour secured areas for resources.

If you want to read up on the post itself and some more details check the link to it here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fo4/comments/4f1uuk/suggestion_scavenger_troops/

The main point this brings up is that you need to do everything yourself which would normally be expected of a whole team of people. In some games this is fine as you do get superhuman space and carrying capacity such as in minecraft, or you can finish tasks in an extremely short time.

However this does somewhat stand in the way of games attempting realism and more sim like aspects.

If crafting something takes time and you need to a lot of it be able to assign this job to others.

If you need a lot of a certain material see if you can assign others to gather it or have a way for it to be delivered to your location.

If there are several fields to tent be able to give that job to others, to FO4s credit you can do that at least and assign transport BETWEEN settlements.

"It's a very very... dead world..."

This is an issue that has largely plagued open world games and, while it has gotten better, still kinda does. That the game worlds feel somewhat devoid of life.

In the real world you often have many small animals around you, birds flying about and chirping, insects buzzing, rusting in the grass and brushes and the like.
In many games however those are absent or relegated to predetermined events. Due to this, the game world feels a lot more sterile than it should be.

A small test you can make is turning off the games music, if it suddenly feels to silent and lifeless you know that there isn't enough ambient noise and things happening to make it work without it.

Adding animals would improve this a lot. Having flies and other insects buzz about, crickets jumping when you walk through higher grass, seeing small lizards and squirrels scurry about, spiders crawl over dungeon walls, birds flying about... All these would greatly enhance the atmosphere.
And similarly this would reinforce the opposite. Suddenly coming into an area that is dead silent and devoid of life adds to a great creep factor.

Now the main issue often brought up with it is resources and development time. Adding small animals take processing power, modeling them and adding sounds takes time to develop.
However for open world games this should have a much higher priority as the game world feeling alive and interactive. Only developing the mere minimum needed to make the world work has the effect of leaving it somewhat dead.

Another issue that is mentioned is “what would you do with those animals”. Here's the thing, you wouldn't necessarily do anything with them aside ones large enough to actually interact with. They would largely be there for the atmosphere. Nor would they all simply attack you.
Not every creature in the world has to be there to be used or to attack you. They could still react aggressive when cornered or be killed for a few drops but otherwise they would simply be “there”. After all, nobody would complain about the grass simply being there, even though that could even be used for some purposes.

As a few side notes.

• Small animals would do with relatively low poly models from a distance and only change to more high definition details when up close.
• Larger bugs can be a very simple model and small ones like flies simply sprites.
• Most small animals would simply flee unless you lure them so their AI would not need to be too great.
• Some small creatures would attack such as snakes, scorpion and larger spiders making high grass more dangerous but would be prevented by wearing boots.-They would not need preset spawn spots but simply an area defined spawn rate and areas where they can spawn (grass, forest, water...). The game doesn't need to track them so they can simply be despawned and respawned when an area is changed.
• Some small insects could become a danger when swarmed such as bees and ants, for that a swarm could simply be a lingering area effect.

Critical Flaw: “Let me repeat that again, again...”

Been a while I wrote one of these, and this will be a relatively short one.


This is something quite a few open world games with companions are guilty of.
You think of giving your companions some snappy catchphrases for combat or certain situations, huh? Here's a good suggestion, DON'T DO IT unless you have a few hundred phrases they can chose from!

I think by far the worst offender so far is “Risen 3” where your companions each have a felt dozen of phrases for initiating and closing combat. In a game where you initiate combat several hundred times you can imagine they start to repeat... a few times.
Doc Bones, who is one of your earliest companions seems to be an avid TF2 player seeing how many times he shouts making a hat out of someones skin.

Similarly the Fallout games fall victim to that, by the 50th time you hear about sweating not being an option for Nick Valentine in FO4, or how much Veronica in New Vegas wants a dress you kinda feel like unfriending them with both hands around the neck.

And sadly the same counts for enemies that keep cycling though their phrases again and again. Especially when the phrases are rather specific to the situation and yet keep happening.


A solution for this is as simple as it's inconvenient, have the voice actors record more than just a few repeat phrases, optimally make a few hundred phrases, additionally make it so their phrases can be interrupted when they get hit or are under fire as if they HAD to stop.
Similarly for the attacking enemies do it like F.E.A.R did and make most of their phrases short and generic expressions, “Move”, “Take Cover”, “I'M HIT”, “Flank”, NEED HELP” and such. And again, if they have catchphrases, record SEVERAL of them, not just a handful.
Also make their phrases more apropriate to the situation. Don't have them shout like an idiot while you are sneaking or a long one liner in a heated combat or while nearly dead.

As a final suggestion, at least for your companions. Have an option to tell them “SHUT UP!”

Critical Flaw: “Ohhh shiny...”

In quite a few games you see something... something shiny. 

Specifically, there's item highlighting. Stuff you can pick up or interact with either has a shine effect to it (Thief: Deadly Shadows) or is outlined in some way (Deus Ex: Human Revolution).

And a lot of the opinion about that is... that it sucks.

Generally the argument is that this is too much handholding once again, you shouldn't be told what you can take and what to interact with.

However there is an issue with that which kinda is more a result of technological development and what it means for art design that makes it somewhat necessary.

Artists and level designers are now able to put a lot more details in the games, tons of furniture, a lot of decorative items and the like, which all makes games feel more real.

But just this has the issues, you aren't able to interact with a lot of those decorative items.

When you have 10 boxes in a room but you are only able to open 1 or 2 of them, the others being purely decorative, what you'd have to do is click through every single one in the hope that it opens. When a huge table is set with all kinds of cutlery and food, but you are only allowed to take the silverware and health potions served you'd have to interact with everything to find the right stuff.

Slightly annoying example from one of the early levels of Thief: DS was a painting you can steal, there are several paintings in the entire castle you invade but you can only steal that one. Yea it did have a different texture on it but still it was a little annoying.

And to prevent the frustration of having to do all this clicky guesswork a lot of game designers resolve it with highlighting the relevant objects. It's a solution but by far not the best one.

Now there is a better solution but it is a lot of work, but it has been done and you probably know about an example already, make everything interactable.

And the example, the TES series from Morrowind forward. If it's an item you have a 99% chance you can pick it up (some items like wicker baskets and small pillows excluded), if it's a container you can probably open it (again only with small counter examples).

And as a result, you don't need any kind of highlighting; if it's there you can use it somehow.

As you might be able to guess though, while this solution would be a lot better it is a lot more work as well, you'd have to make stats for all the different items, all the containers need to have properties added to them. And as the detail capabilities of game worlds rise the need to stat all of those items rises as well

Also this does create a lot of clutter, things you either can't use or that are worthless to sell. However there are solutions to that as well, crafting and creative uses.

In DX:HR you sometimes encounter carts full of cleaning utensils, those could be used to make makeshift poisons, explosives or throw them around. A face full of bleach could do wonders against a guard.

Useless items like wooden spoons could still be burned, damaged swords and armors broken down for raw metal, or have an option to sell “bulk” which gives you something for clutter items.

As a little related note, this also applies to being able to take things from killed enemies and creatures. It's annoying when they wear a full suit of armor that could fit you but you're not allowed to take it. Or you're starving to death but can't take the meat of a killed creature because it's not classed as something edible.

Generally Fallout 3 onward does well on that front, you can take pretty much everything off a fallen enemy and most of them also have edible meat... well as edible as you get in a nuclear wasteland. And they even extended that to being able to eat human flesh, though with a silly “crime against nature” penalty attached, but lets best not get into an ethics debate here.

Anyway that's my thought on the topic.

Highlighting would be less necessary if you weren't inherently limited to certain objects in a selection of much more, but the extra work is an issue.

"Size matters"

Wow, it's been ages I wrote one of these... well, lets not put it up any further!

Lately I've been playing “Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition” and it's a really great game... frustrating, infuriating, brutal... but fun.
However it at some points has kinda tickled up a small issue quite some games have, conveying size of enemies though their movements.

For the most part Dark Souls does quite well there. The Giants and most big enemies you encounter a bit later on do move like they are huge creatures.
It's just a few that tickled this and reminded me of this topic, for example the GIANT giant rats in the sewers which move like regular sized ones that have just been increased in size... which is probably what has been done here :-p
Or the final boss of the "Artorias of the Abyss" expansion, or as I like to refer to him "Spaz Monkey", who really seems to move way too fast and agile for his size.

Now, this is not to criticize Dark Souls, just in case someone got the wrong idea here, and lets be honest, this is the Internet, someone WILL have gotten the wrong idea here, so lets clarify.

The main meat here is that oftentimes animators and developers don't seem to take size, mass and momentum into account. While this isn't a huge issue in itself, if the game still plays well there's not a real problem, it does waste a bit of potential. That potential being to really convey size other than just making something look big.


A small example is between “Mechwarrior 3” and “Mechwarrior 4”.
In 3 the mechs moved rather slow, the faster ones both needed time to speed up and to slow down again and overall the movements felt heavy and somewhat slow. In 4 they moved a lot faster, could accelerate and decelerate pretty fast and where overall more agile.
While this is largely done for gameplay, fast and agile is more engaging, it did make them lose a lot of the feeling of size and weight, it felt less like you controlled a 40 meter behemoth but more like you controlled the 4 meter tall X1-Alpha from “Future Cop: LAPD” which is a small mech that's supposed to be fast and agile.


On the topic, my brother sent me a video a bit ago about the eruption of a volcano in Iceland which tossed out huge lava bombs. While you do get a certain scale by seeing people near the eruption site, simply seeing how slow they apparently move does convey a lot of their size.
If you want to check the video out, here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgih2TL-9As


Now, the primary problem if course, what does this mean for gameplay.
For players this would mean losing a bit of “control” in a way. If something huge has been set in motion it's hard to stop again. This does already work in a lot of driving games, a huge truck will take a lot longer to get to a halt than a small city car.
You would be more at the mercy of physics which can be an off-putting thought but should be doable with some time to get used to certain quirks.

For NPCs this is less a problem, what has to be done it actually make the move appropriate to their mass. A small issue again though is consistency, the player has to be able to rely on big mass meaning more momentum. If an enemy can swing a 20 ton hammer but simply fully turn around mid swing it breaks both the illusion and being able to rely on a tactic.
An enemy that's huge and heavy and does a jump your direction should still carry the momentum and slide or roll on quite a bit before coming to a stop and not just behave like a scaled up version of a regular sized person.


Inversely the momentum issue does also work out for smaller scale.
Oftentimes, especially in First Person games, character and especially the player seem to have no momentum at all. Again this is often done for gameplay, however I personally think the issue is simply being afraid to try it.
I have tried out the first person view mod for GTA4, as you may know when you played it you do have a good bit of weight to you, it takes a bit to get into a full run and to stop from it and while sprinting you can't take tight corners too well. And surprisingly, it actually feels very natural after a little bit, all you need is some getting into it. And for GTA4 not being designed for first person this still says something.

And of course a little problem with seeming to apply too MUCH weight at times. See how slow you often move melee weapons (especially swords) or when punches seem to move at walking speed.
I personally like to refer to that as “reenactment accuracy” as this is probably done by watching people do reenactments and show fights. Of course this misses a little detail, the actors of course are trying to not kill or hurt each other, which is kinda the point of fighting. So of course they will throw their hits slower and and more careful.
My advice, watch the reenactments but then give them some foam batons and just let them wail away at each other as well, that should give you a small idea of them really throwing punches. While that isn't that accurate as well try to find a bit of a middle there.


Anyway that's all for now, hope my next installment will not take one and a half years to write up.

“We've got a problem”

This is mainly just a little side thought on the realism topic from a while back.

Something I had on my mind for a while is the appeal that realism in video games can potentially hold (again note I'm talking about gameplay not graphics).

Primarily the appeal is “problem solving”.

It's mainly claimed that realism would remove the escapist aspect of games, but that is not necessarily true. Games would still allow you to do things you could not do in real life or would not want to do.

However, if you have realistic aspects and are consistent with it the simple point of solving problems can be entertaining.

As an example I have thought of:

Take an example of having to get atop a building. In a game where you can easily jump 10 meters high this won't be a large problem, just take a hop. However it also doesn't offer much challenge or “satisfaction” to do this.

However now take a setting where you can only jump realistically high. How do you solve scaling the building?

• Can you go through the building and a hatch in the roof?
• Is there maybe a ladder nearby?
• Can you stack boxes to build a makeshift ladder?
• Can you jump off a neighboring building?
• Is there a grappling hook?
• Could you park a forklift next to it, have the prongs extended and then climb up those?

I guess I could go on with a lot of those “solutions”. But figuring out any of those can give you a sense of achievement if you pull it off, especially if all, nearly all or at least most of them ARE available. Think of how you can get on top of places in Minecraft by stacking things, building stairs or putting ladders on walls.

And this is where being “consequential” comes in. If you attempt systems like this you MUST think things though. You must give the player methods to achieve certain feats. If you can't stack boxes safely enough don't make it appear as you could. Don't have unclimbable or unusable ladders and the like.

And I think this is the point that often leaves a sour aftertaste in peoples mouths. Oftentimes game developers slack on that point. Aside a predetermined path and solution you can take there often is nothing left open for you to figure out, even if some solutions would be way more logic or obvious.

Sadly this again is primarily a game design and engine related problem. Most engines simply don't have physics that allow certain actions or the time to script a usable ladder wasn't there. Also in most cases it isn't really “needed” to have several solutions.

However this does largely apply to open world games. Here you do kinda want to give the player options and actually make the world feel open. As to stick to the topic, actually giving the player ways to solve the “problems” they are facing in the game, especially give them logical ways to do so.

“Still got one HP left!”

Yea going after a real “classics” here, Hitpoints.

The big problem isn't that Hitpoints system themselves are useless or outdated, by far not, there are many games that still do great with the classic HP systems. The problem comes in when games themselves get more complex but still use a “HP only” system.

Of course this primarily comes up in terms of combat. You can easily empty half a magazine of ammo into an opponent but somehow they won't drop or even twitch at it. Stab and slash someone several times with a sword and they won't even blink.

One issue I often run into in games like STALKER and FarCry is that hand grenades are nearly useless. You either capture someone in the “instant kill” area OR they just take some damage but are otherwise unimpeded to still act as if nothing happened.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, while sometimes hilarious, you get absolutely stupid kills. Got an opponent down to 1 HP, he's still in full fighting condition and kill him by hitting his knee with an empty Styrofoam cup.

Now a solution could be damage effects that simply tie into how many Hps are left. It's done partly in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, enemies will walk slower or limp if they are seriously wounded. You could easily set points at which enemies show damage effects, 50% damage for unable to run, 75% damage for limping and so on.

But that leads into another big problem, enemies that have a ridicules amount of HP. My often mentioned example of an overpowered Mountain Lion in Oblivion is one of the worst case scenarios. Here it would have literally taken 200 arrows, all hits, to knock it down to anywhere near a kill, so even if it did show injure effects it wouldn't have brought me much.

And also one thing it all comes down to. Enemies being able to take a ridiculously powerful attack without any harm. RPG to the chest, nothing. Several machinegun rounds to the head, barely flinching. Of course in some cases it might be explained, but if said enemies did not wear any protection and it still happens you know you've got a problem.

So this leads back to an old favorite, Locational Damage and Damage Effects.

While quite common, at least in part, in most shooters it's still something many people seem to dislike, especially in the role playing dominated side (despite there being RPGs with locational damage systems).

Having a very simple LD/DE system would already help in many cases. The grenade example, enemies hit in the “injure” zone have multiple injures all over their body from shrapnel and the shockwave impeding their abilities to act. Hell even “ruptured ear drums” could be simulated by their aim being severely off or them having problems keeping track of you. The mountain lion example, an arrow stuck in it's legs and it would only limp.

Now I did say that LD is in many cases “partly” done in modern shooters. A problem there being that it is often nothing more than a damage modifier and an “instant kill” zone (head shots). You still don't have enemies reacting to injures or pain. Instead of breaking down on the ground or limping severely from a hit in the thigh they instead keep running, the only difference being that repeatedly hitting the leg takes 20 rounds instead of 10 in the chest.

Think of it like this, you have an enemy standing behind and obstacle and only the legs are in view. In most games you waste a magazine of ammo blowing away at the legs until he's dead. But think of the same scenario, you shoot the legs with a short burst, enemy drops down and you can shoot him in the chest now that he's exposed. Much more “efficient” and also “tactical”.

However it must be said again that this is by far not something for every game. Zelda would not require a LD system (though it does have enemies only vulnerable in certain locations), but first person RPGs, especially non linear ones, could profit from it as they are essentially action and player dependent.

Otherwise I would still encourage at least having health tied damage effects. For a linear style game those can already add more feeling for combat instead of grinding your opponents down with them still being able to fight even close to death.

To finish on a little side note on grenades again, how many games are there where explosions can actually knock enemies off their feet? No, not dead, just thrown to the ground.

I personally can't really think of any, so this may also be a point why in many games they are rendered useless. Though you may correct me on that as I lack the overview a bit.