Oh consoles have the power. My Xbox 360 has more power than my computer. I bought a brand new computer 6 months ago and turns out it is too weak for Fallout 3. Other people use this computer all the time now. So, I am thinking of buying another for myself.

defo especially the ps3 as its like a computer. and for mods it be good if bethesda made the mods and put them on the psn store or live like a dlc

It would still be a user created mod. Which Sony and M$ don't like.

We are talking about actual mods here, right? Bethesda can't sell those, and to pay money for free material would be horrible. If Bethesda put them up there for free, it still costs them money. Why would they waste money? As much as I would like mods, Sony just won't allow it for the ps3 and it would be very strange to get mods over the psn.

i agree it would be weird but mods wouldn't it doest really make sense that sony create a real powerful console capable of many things yet dont let it show its full potential because the ps3 is capable of many things, duno bout xbox but that console just doesnt cut the mustard for it (this quote isnt dissing its just a fact)

Look, if you have to complain about the shooting system in Fallout 3 its only telling us all that you simply cant play the game, and arent good at it....I love the game...and when I shoot at things I shoot at things....I dont sit and cry saying "geee i wish this was like COD4" or some other game where its impossible to miss

Bottom line...if you complain about the aiming in Fallout 3 you obviously havent played the game for longer than a week...are too stubborn to give it a chance...are lame....or just blow at it.

Mmmmmm...can't hit anything, then use VATS. Don't like VATS, go play a dedicated FPS.

If we had iron sights, we'd then have complaints that they restrict your vision, etc.

Basically, because F3 is a RPG, and the way it's designed, if you want accuracy (by design) use VATS, if you want to charge around simply overwhelming your enemies with unaimed, instinctive fire, don't use VATS.

Before buying this game, I considered it probably the major turnoff or doubt about how good it would be, especially after just playing Medal of Honor: Frontline.. But now I don't mind having no sights.
Still, wouldn't it be awesome? Be so much more fun, and you'd feel more like you are actually shooting the gun. Be great especially for PC users, as they could move the mouse around freely while looking down the sights, like COD.

An observation I've made: It seems when talking about FPS elements, everyone seems to be wanting improvements that are in the COD series. Examples of threads active and in discussion right now: Proning, Iron Sights (this one obviously) and Riot Shields.
But then again, I suppose most FPS have all these elements and all the others that COD have (except for maybe the Riot Shields).

But I think if Fallout 3 had too many of these COD/FPS qualities, then it would be less of a trademark Bethesda RPG and more of a typical FPS.
Let's keep the game unique.

I think its better that there are no sights. Its an RPG, not a shooter.

There are at least two Iron sights mods that I know of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJ5f0dOxC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6TKVOXVRs

I dont think either of them is perfect with all guns though.

Agreed, up to a point that sights really aren't necessery.
But sights could also be used as an RPG mechanic making the gameplay less of a shooter and more of an RPG than what it now is. That is, if the skills are designed to support it (as in: skill determines accuracy more than damage and has a heavier impact from min to max).

[A crude example]:
Shooting while aiming through sights would use the full potential of your weaponskill (no drawbacks and no bonuses), no running allowed.
Walking while aiming: the sights waiver according to your characters skill minus 25%
Shooting from the hip - weaponskill -20%
Moving while shooting from the hip: weaponskill -35% (walking) and -75% (running)
A bonus from crouching while staying still and lesser drawbacks while moving. And of course a significantly slower moving speed to not make it your primary stance.
[/crude example]

Why is everyone saying that ironsights would ruin the RPG elements? In my opinion, Bethesda needs to make the FPS and RPG elements stronger.

^this people i agree 110% on the above post

Fixed.

Why just RPG? I'm still annoyed by the fact that an enemy can take up to five shots to the head, and still live. Maybe I've just been playing too much Borderlands.

Mainly because FPS combat and action in general are the most overwhelming aspects of the whole game, and secondarily because I'd like Fallout to move away from FPS as much as possible while still keeping the gameplay interesting. Now, I wouldn't mind if I could oneshot people, but I'd like the same rules to apply to myself too (a headshot is a headshot, playercharacter or not) - and regarding combat skills, I'd like to see an actual difference when I invest in it (other than in extreme ends) - in the accuracy to be specific. Maybe I too have played too much FPS games.

no no I totally agree with you there

No. That's cosmetic and irrelevant.

^^ Hmmm..personally, i can't see the issues you mentioned above to be a 'problem'.

'the bullets being slow and fat...and doesn't really sound like they should'...

I'm amazed that someone actually even pay attention to that kind of details...but is it really a problem? in this game in particular? As for weapons not shooting properly, you could make the argument that since fallout 3 weapons are old as dirt, they don't function normally....or sounded like they should.

I mostly..well..all the time actually...plays in third person. And being an almost complete noob on being a gamer,i never really have a problem with the aiming system on fallout 3. Just point and shoot...easy enough.You either miss or you don't.

And enemies actually do take cover in this game. You noticed it in particular with the Enclave soldiers. If you fire at them, they find cover and shoot back. Raiders and mutants on the other hand...well SOMETIMES raiders do take cover while fighting you.

Disable auto reload...

Seems to me all your solutions will be perfect had Fallout 3 been a game like ...yes COD. But in my humble opinion, it's completely unnecessary in FO3...where combat isn't really it's main selling point. It's not lke most FPS games these days where combat is all that matter, so those things you mentioned may have been necessary...You can easily walk around for more than an hour without getting into combat in this game.

This game is a combat-centric FPS, and you're asking me if how the weapons look, feel and work is important? Really? As for the weapons-not-shooting-properly problem, no, it can't be handwaved. Being dirty and old doesn't make weapons sound like a hand-wheel toy.


Yes, you either miss or you don't. You can't properly direct you shot. Try doing a headshot from anything farther than arms-distance, and you'll see what I mean. You'll hit alright -- the torso, not the head. If all you want is to run around spraying bullets left and right (like you apparently do), then it works just fine, but anyone else that wants anything above that level is in for a hell of a frustration.


They don't take cove. They (as I said) run away from you, then come back. Sometimes they crouch. That's a far cry from what you see in pretty much any good FPS, going as far back as MoH 1. There the enemies would eg hide behind columns, pop out, shoot, and immediately go back. Sometimes they would just poke their guns out and blindly spray bullets. They would hold their defensive positions, an*that* is what taking cover means.


Do you know how to do that? If you do, then please tell me.


Like which CoD? If it's like CoD 2, then certainly. But also like Far Cry 2, like Crysis, like MoH, like Rainbow Six, like Battlefield, like Counter Strike...


Ahem! Sorry, I stopped at "where combat isn't really it's main selling point". Seriously? If combat isn't it's main selling point, I wonder what is it. Because it certainly isn't RPG. Also, it may not be it's main selling point (it is, but for argument's sake), but it's certainly it's main focus.

.

I guess this is where you and i have to disagree. I may not been a game expert, but to me, this game couldn't be further than a 'combat centric FPS'...especially the FPS part since it's only one of the option to play this game. And i still stand by my point that i'm utterly amazed that one could find such a trivial thing such as gun sounds...really... to be important enough to get annoyed. But that's just me.



Like i said, i never really have much problem in that department...and i'm a mediocre gamer at best. thanks for implying that i svck more than that though...by just spraying and prays i hit something.



no, i don't. I don't really care to find out how to either-since it seems like a such a trivial matter.



Ehhmm...they DO take cover...as in ...find something huge to duck behind and shoot back.The Enclave at the taft tunnels is only one of the example as they do more than crouch...they take cover behind the wall or pillars and shoot back.Methinks maybe you should pay less attention to fat bullets that make wieird noises and actually pay attention to what your enemies are doing.



No need to show your resume. I'm deadly impressed by your knowledge of all things FPS, good sir...or madam.
Now do you want a cookie?



And so we're back at the ever popular' FO3 is not really an RPG" so i'm not going to even debate that...

Regardless of how hardcoe RPG-ers may say otherwise, FO3 IS an RPG game. It may not meet YOUR standard of how an RPG game should be, but it is one...and as such, the heavy emphasis is not really combat, but exploration.
You walk around for one hour or more..talks to people, then enter combat for like maybe 10 minutes...then you walk and talk again for an hour...rinse and repeat. It's not like most FPS games where you're basically in combat MOST of the time so fat bullets and not being able to auto reload and whatnot may have been necessary...but it's definitely not needed n THIS game.

In my humble opinion of course.

Fallout 3 is not an FPS. It has guns and you can play it in first-person-perspective, but that does not automatically make it an FPS. Also, I know quite a bit on how guns sound in reality; and their sounds are pretty boring. To me, Fallout 3 comes very close to mimicking the sounds a real gun would make; not the dramatic unrealistic sounds you hear in most shooters and Hollywood movies.




Odd... I can perform sniper headshots that kill a target with one bullet at vast distances, without using VATS to assist me. Guess I'm just naturally gifted then or an oddity of society




Again I seem to post my personal experiences here; where an npc standing on the second floor of a building shot at me a few times, ducked behind a wall, reloaded his weapon and ran down the stairs - only to appear right in front of me spraying me with bullets as I just wanted to enter said building to try and get behind him. Gave me a bit of a scare as I could not see where he was at the time I was moving in from the sides.




FPS combat was never intended as the main selling point of this game, so I fail to see why you remain so adamant in trying to convince people. You were not the developer of Fallout 3, yet you speak (almost preaching from my perspective) as if you were. Unless you do not take kindly to others that hold a different view.

Fallout 3 relies heavily on a combat oriented environment, this is correct; but the vast gameworld, quests, exploration and choices are definitely RPG. A 'do what you like to do' mentality instead of 'find the launch codes of Fat Larry, kill everyone along the way and get to the next level'. I don't see many sidequests or vast worlds in the -often linear- levels of most shooters publishers have been pushing out these past years. There it's mostly "pew-pew-snipe-stab-BOOM HEADSHOT!" in my humble opinion.

In the end, the comment 'to each his own' comes to mind. Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but repeating said opinions whilst subsequently and continuously slam-dunking the differing opinion from others is not overly nice.


Enjoy your games, as I am enjoying mine

Milt

Its an RPG not an FPS.I think Beth. did that intentionally to make it less FPS.

Me neither. I don't want Fallout 3 to become a pure FPS at all. But, like I said, I want the FPS elements(combat) and RPG elements to be stronger. There could even be a way to mix them(weapon proficiencies in Borderlands for example).

Yeah, I've been playing too much Borderlands.

I don't need ironsights, I have a crosshair.

(Seriously, the only games where ironsights really matter are the ones with no crosshair - i.e, ones going for max "realism", like WW2 shooters. Otherwise, it's just cosmetic. Lining up a target on your crosshair and lining up a target on the top of the little I at the end of your gunbarrel = same thing.)



....and anyway, you can use any of the scoped weapons to get direct sighting.



(The distance arcing on bullet trajectories is a bit off, there've been several mods made to correct that. Without mods, a good way to snipe successfully at distance is to aim for the base of the neck for a headshot....)

---------
Just got Borderlands this week. Gotta say, the ironsights thing in that game bugs the heck out of me, especially on - say - the SMG. Thing covers up half the screen and has terrible sights. My aim's worse that way than just firing normally. :/