Worst game (or games) you have beat.

[BTGBullseye]

Funny, I remember maxing out everything that would increase my accuracy at all, and having a 28% chance to hit the beginning area rats from five paces. And that's just according to the UI, because actually I fired every bullet I started with and didn't land a single hit, so clearly it isn't actually 28%. With 10 perception, intelligence and agility, and all of my skill points dumped straight into small guns. On another attempt, I came back with a maxed out melee build and hit twice out of twelve tries. But if you're okay with a game that won't let you ever hit anything, where most weapons (and several entire weapon skills) are completely useless with no redeeming qualities, and the only way to hit anything is to fire with a gun at point blank (which, as I said, is counter-intuitive and suicide in real life), that's your prerogative.

I had that exact same issue.

 

Wasteland 2 is really good though.

[Presence]

Fallout has many very real flaws, but your difficulty with the gambler's fallacy isn't one of them. It was praised for being an early game where dozens of different character builds could complete the win in a satisfying way, from gunner to conversationalist to using pickpocket on an npc not to steal, but to put live dynamite in his trousers.

 

Maybe I should say that if probability in Fallout has a flaw it is one of presentation. They don't rig the dice to have memory, and that can be frustrating, and that can make people dislike a game pretty darn quickly. It's a very real convention in modern games to make events seem more random by making them less random. Developers write actual advice columns on the best way to make probability act exactly like you think it should. First time I heard about it was the Kol adventure queue, but it's been going on for a long time now.

 

Do yourself a favor though, don't ever gamble with real money. Expecting casino dice to work like they do in modern games is a high risk personality trait.

[Seattleite]

Except it's not random. If it was random, you might get large variations in small test sizes, but the more you tried the closer it would be to the listed value. 28% should not result in a consistent miss, if you fire twenty shots five or six should hit. That is NOT what happened. There's a vast gulf between the displayed probability and the actual probability. That bugs me. It also bugs me that the melee and unarmed skills are completely worthless.

[Blightmare]

You're right in that it isn't random. Computers don't know how to do true random. All RNG's are built on a seed of consistent numbers. say if you were to use an RNG without ever changing the seed it uses then no matter how many times you run the program you'd always get, for example, 5, 19, 44, 11, 47, 99, 2, 83. You could run it 100+ times and it'd always return those numbers. There's a ton of ways to change the seed it uses every time it's launched and most modern engines do that anyways taking that burden off the programmer.

 

As for Fallout, it all depends on the method of number generation. In my experiences with working with RNG's rapidly generating a series of numbers in a small time span(say, once a frame) can result in returning a series of the same number. For example when I was fiddling around with a basic procedural level generator I would use an RNG to determine how many doors a room would get and where it would go. On far to many occasions to be simple coincidence it would generate all the rooms in a straight line. If the game is generating all its chances at the start of a battle then you're likely to get chunks of the same numbers. This could even happen if they role it once every attack since you'll be rolling all the same numbers as the first method except slower. The simplest way to avoid that is to have the RNG continuously rolling numbers in the background and using whatever number it's currently on when the attack is called.

 

Not saying Fallout did this as I don't know there method of generation but this is just one theory. *shrug*

[Presence]

You can save in combat, the results vary. 99% of game rngs will use the clock to grab a new seed every second since it's easy and good enough.

 

I fired up a new game on hardest difficulty. Gifted+fast shot, so not even getting any special accuracy bonuses. I'm not miserable so far, except that Ian keeps shooting me in the back.

[SC]

Funny, I remember maxing out everything that would increase my accuracy at all, and having a 28% chance to hit the beginning area rats from five paces.

 

Just curious, what was your luck? I really want to know what you did, because it's outright statistically impossible to have that hard of a time in the damn starting cave.

 

Not saying Fallout did this as I don't know there method of generation but this is just one theory. *shrug*

 

The main issue I've found with the game is, I don't think the HUD takes into account Armour Class. Which subtracts directly from Hit Percentage, so 95-30 for example, changing hit chance to 65.

 

You can save in combat, the results vary. 99% of game rngs will use the clock to grab a new seed every second since it's easy and good enough.

 

Saving in Fallout's combat is hilarious, since you can make the final fight with the Master way easier if you decide to fight him.

 

Ian will forever be my greatest enemy unintentionally, I've found he always ends up doing more damage to me than the guys we're actually fighting.

[Seattleite]

I dumped everything else to get the maximum perception, intelligence and agility. I don't remember my other stats, it's been half a year. I do remember distributing my remaining points evenly, though. Also, that was my second try, my first I did a more reasonable sounding, not min-maxed to all hell kind of build and got *more* hits, somehow, despite a lower displayed accuracy.

[BTGBullseye]

I dumped everything else to get the maximum perception, intelligence and agility. I don't remember my other stats, it's been half a year. I do remember distributing my remaining points evenly, though. Also, that was my second try, my first I did a more reasonable sounding, not min-maxed to all hell kind of build and got *more* hits, somehow, despite a lower displayed accuracy.

Same exact. Mine was about 6 months ago on the free GOG copy... Luck was at 5.

 

I even tried cheating and giving everything a 10, and guess what? I died without hitting a damn thing, all in my first combat!

[Kenwoodrulez]

Metal Gear Solid 2, it was a clunky experience with an outrageous story and I'm not sure why I put the time into beating it in the first place. I didn't even feel proud of myself for doing it, I just felt relieved that the nightmare was over.

 

Though, there was also Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, which took what the first game did and made it really, really tedious. And it was depressingly short, only extended by gameplay fodder such as pointless mini-boss fights. Like, seriously- why do I need to fight the absorbing man? Why? Also, if you're gonna keep the story straight, don't bring down the "twist ending" that didn't really happen in the story arc (Civil War) your game takes place during. If the game clearly exploits what happened in a point in comic book history, then keep your story straight, it's not that hard! Though since Cap' lost Civil War, so that brings up several more questions.

 

But I digress, the game's ending soiled the Civil War's good name, it was inaccurate and if I ever get the time, I'll go into detail what's wrong with MUA2.

[BidetoftheDead]

Honestly I have to say Dragon Age Origins.

 

I know, I know there are probably worst games I could pick but it wasn't so much as it was a bad game it was just, to me, a really generic and boring one. Even games that are god awful have some comedic value to them in the "Why would someone make this" and "This is so stupid" but for Origins it wasn't any of that it was just purely boring and dull.