Disappointed anyone? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:07 pm

Same could be said about FO3. Combat is a sideline in RPGs, TB or RT.

Hm I'm not sure it could. You can't go through the game as a diplomat (don't kill anyone) so there's already a slight focus on combat, and a good chunk of the fans of it are that way because of the shooty aspects of the game. While I'm not saying it's Quake, it's definitely an action-RPG, in the vein of Deus Ex.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:50 am

Though Fallout 3 is a action RPG and puts a lot emphasis on combat. Which is even indirectly acknowledged by the Fallout 3 devs.

Maybe, but the combat is better in FO3.

The next time you drawdown on the neighborhood punks, It's all good. Just tell them it's your turn and to wait wile you set up your aimed shots and figure out what you are going to do.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:49 pm

Maybe, but the combat is better in FO3.

The next time you drawdown on the neighborhood punks, It's all good. Just tell them it's your turn and to wait wile you set up your aimed shots and figure out what you are going to do.

Well that's an issue of opinion better. I don't see it as worse, or better, really. Was funny when a friend several years ago, not sure this is the case, told me that RT is accomplished by giving each player turns of microseconds in length. Turn based is just an abstraction of combat, it's unrealistic yes, but most abstractions are. And circle strafe those punks, works wonders.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:15 am

Well that's an issue of opinion better. I don't see it as worse, or better, really. Was funny when a friend several years ago, not sure this is the case, told me that RT is accomplished by giving each player turns of microseconds in length. Turn based is just an abstraction of combat, it's unrealistic yes, but most abstractions are. And circle strafe those punks, works wonders.

I think...again my opinion...that TB works better with higher orders of battle and RT works better with individuals.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:44 am

in my current game im using the enclave commander mod and im running around in an officers suit letting my soldiers do the heavy work. this is what is great about these games......no matter what issues you might have with it at some point a mod will probably address it. i do agree with not enough consequences but that is the fault of the console generation which would have a hissy fit if someone god forbid made the game actually hard. where is ammo weight, why can i spam stimpacks nonstop. (fixed by mods)

i like what far cry 2 did where it limited the number of weapons you could carry at one time. made you actually think about your load out. unfortunately to many people who are used to halo would boohoo. im still waiting for a mod that makes the guards and tenpenny himself hostile to you if you disarm the bomb in megaton, after all burke said i wouldnt sleep very well.

i would love to have certain areas off limits to me if i do certain things. i cleaned out the slavers at lincolns memorial, the slaves set up shop there and i even killed slavers at evergreen mills. everyone at paradise falls seems to know that i have good karma and word would have spread about what i did, however noone attacks you on sight like they should.

i agree that TB works on much larger scales where it takes alot longer for stuff to happen, and that RT is the only way to go for mano a mano or small group actions. or in my case 2 sentry bots and six enclave soldiers along four fully outfitted companions. hehehehe.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:08 am

Maybe, but the combat is better in FO3.
...

In your opinion. Yes. Mine? No. What ever if the combat is now better or not is pure taste (if the combat fitts Fallout, is a different question and a dead horse on this forum)

*edit
If you want to realise a certain experience like a seperation between player and character skill Tourn Based combat can here be a very good choice. Many people dont like it and do come up with "realism" or "immersion". Which yes. Frankly Turn Based combat might not have the same "effect" on your brain as "real" time gameplay. But the experience is a different one and thats the trick. I could never imagine a Jagged Alliance in real time. Why? Cause for such needs there are already games. The setting in JA1 and JA2 is more or less a pretty generic ones, it only starts for its fans to be really fun cause of the gameplay. YOu could ask anyone of the JA fans what they love about the game and most of the time they will tell you its the combat. Its slow yes. And with many enemies it can take sometimes ours to finish one map. But so is a nice game of chess. What is for some "boring" and "tedious" is for others the absolute thrilling experience.

Some think the that all you do in TB games is wait for your tourn. Some people think in chess when your enemy is playing you only wait for your tourn. No surprise those people loose and dont like the game.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:23 pm

How about this:

Forget Fallout 1, Fallout 2, and any other game you've played. Then you might enjoy Fallout 3 without bleating about perceived disappointments.

From this perspective, I enjoyed Fallout 3. But then, I play games to enjoy them, and don't go into depressive overload that the game didn't include features in some other game from some other company that I thought were cool, or came from a game of the same name produced some indeterminate time ago.

However, having said this, I do feel the pain of those who have been drawn in by effective marketting by those darstardly gaming companies, or who were expecting a clone of their most favourite game ever...my tears are blood.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:19 am

The biggest problem with Fallout 3, was that it wasn't really Fallout. It was simply a generic shooter, with the Fallout logo slapped on it. There was generally, too much shooting, and not enough story telling.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:54 am

CivII and Alpha Centauri. Even FO-Tactics was better.
AI doesn't affect the quality of combat? You seem to have low standards if you believe that.

JA2 and SS did it even better for the man to man level

Maybe, but the combat is better in FO3.

The next time you drawdown on the neighborhood punks, It's all good. Just tell them it's your turn and to wait wile you set up your aimed shots and figure out what you are going to do.

Decent TB systems have interrupt mechanics so if I have faster reactions than the punk I would still shoot him before he could shoot me, in a decent TB system no one has to wait their turn even X-com had this, Battle isle 4 had this (man to man not the other ones) FO's TB system was not the best but then combat was not a battle they wanted fight. At lest understand the basics of how a certain system works before stating stuff like this.

I think...again my opinion...that TB works better with higher orders of battle and RT works better with individuals.

Only people who have not played a lot of TB games say this. TB can work for any scale again JA2 is one of the best man to man combat games you will ever get. Steel Panthers is pretty much the best at squad level, I like the campaign games for Platoon level, the battle front games for Corp level, Strategic command for an entire theatre and Civ and world at war for the global level

I suggest people don't write off a style of play that has a lot to offer after playing very few games that use that system

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:19 pm

Funny part is Radscropions DO poison you in fallout3, but it's only a few seconds of HP drain and that's it, so i guess they felt no need to make an 'actual' poison skill/damage type and just cheesed out and made it drain a little hp instead. Yay for cutting corners!

Poisons are meant to last for days not sec's... Try fighting radscorpions in Fallout 1 or 2 you'll see for your self what I'm talking about.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:29 am

Actually it is so dissimilar it is not even funny. All NPC interaction in Fallout depended on your stats, your previous actions and your karma. Not so in F3.

Example - I blow up Megaton and no one reacts differently to me. Counter example - The banker in the Hub in F1 would not deal with you if you have positive karma above certain level. If you insist on talking to him and you have positive karma , he and his goons will attack you.

Example - low intelligence mele oriented character in F3 has the same dialog options as a high intelligence science boy, as well as a high charisma/speech diplomat. Wonder why??? Counter example in F1 similarly build low intelligence mele character has almost no dialog options and he cans solve problems only through combat.

Well - some of us don't use the rule "When comparing FO3 to previous games you may only consider the worst things in FO3".

Example - Lucas Simms dies and Harden talks about his dead Dad.

Example - There are all sorts of dialog lines in FO3 that are marked [Intelligence], [Charisma] or even [Medicine]

I'll agree that FO2 (I don't remember FO1 all that well) does dialog better than FO3, but claiming that FO3 doesn't do it at all ("...same dialog options...") is a [Lie - Speech 10%].

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:16 pm

The biggest problem with Fallout 3, was that it wasn't really Fallout. It was simply a generic shooter, with the Fallout logo slapped on it. There was generally, too much shooting, and not enough story telling.

FO3 is simply a generic shooter. Right. And FO1 is just a text adventure with some nicer graphics.(insert eye rolling smiley here)

The biggest problem with your complaint is that it isn't really an argument - It's simply (insert violin playing smiley here), with the Fallout logo slapped on it.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:17 pm

Is this...a fact? You're certainly presenting it like it is.

I don't get this statement. If that was true enemies wouldn't approach you, use different weapons, heal themselves, etc.

Fire up FO2, get a random encounter, and watch the combat.

There you are, with your peons around you. There they are. They come at you...directly at you. You line up a shot or two. Vic takes a step and fires. Sulik takes a couple steps.

Enemy advances directly towards you...
Multiply that by several times, and then multiply that by how many combat encounters you have in a game.

At least in tactics they tried to flank you.

At least in FO3 they place themselves well, fire and maneuver, lay down suppressive fire.

FO1-2 combat was simplistic, andn that made it a poor implementation. It wasn't TB that was the problem, it was that combat was weak.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:04 am

Fallout 1 & 2 were not made as shooting games. The most important thing in them is the storyline and roleplay.
Fallout 3 is the direct opposite, as said many many times.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:09 am

Actually it is so dissimilar it is not even funny. All NPC interaction in Fallout depended on your stats, your previous actions and your karma. Not so in F3.

Example - I blow up Megaton and no one reacts differently to me. Counter example - The banker in the Hub in F1 would not deal with you if you have positive karma above certain level. If you insist on talking to him and you have positive karma , he and his goons will attack you.

Example - low intelligence mele oriented character in F3 has the same dialog options as a high intelligence science boy, as well as a high charisma/speech diplomat. Wonder why??? Counter example in F1 similarly build low intelligence mele character has almost no dialog options and he cans solve problems only through combat.

This is why Fallout 3 is not completely inside the "Fallout Universe." There are still so many "minor" things that should have been taken care of, specially that very short main quest of Fallout 3 in which you can't really continue playing after you finished the game.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:48 am

Fire up FO2, get a random encounter, and watch the combat.

There you are, with your peons around you. There they are. They come at you...directly at you. You line up a shot or two. Vic takes a step and fires. Sulik takes a couple steps.

Enemy advances directly towards you...
Multiply that by several times, and then multiply that by how many combat encounters you have in a game.

At least in tactics they tried to flank you.

At least in FO3 they place themselves well, fire and maneuver, lay down suppressive fire.

FO1-2 combat was simplistic, andn that made it a poor implementation. It wasn't TB that was the problem, it was that combat was weak.

Simplistic or not, doesn't mean it's a poor implementation. It's just a simple implementation. And as for FO3, come now, flanking and suppressive fire ? I didn't experience that from the Super Mutants (although they are supposed to be idiots), Raiders or Enclave. They did the same thing you'd decry FO2 for, go around corner, wait for them to round it and unload on them, easy does it. Wouldn't say it's a terrible implementation of FPS combat, it's a fairly simple one for this day - I'd hate to be playing old-school GR set in the FO universe, heh.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:34 am

The reason why you can experience so much with one character in one playtrough is cause of the design in Bethesdas Fallout. Something that you could do in the past games was to "cut your self out" from certain aspects of the game. Fallout 1 and 2 were a lot less forgiving compared to Fallout 3, roleplaying whise and with the quest. If you have been rude to Lynet she would not hesitate to throw you out of Vault City and thus you had to find another way to get to Vault 15 (and a few other locations). Another part was that ways in one dierction could lead to results that leave you ... unsatisfied [in a positive way] where you might have the feeling that with a different character specialiced in different skills or more in the diplomatic direction could get a totally different result (which most of the time also was that way). Example would be talking with the Master or the Leutenant and Morpheus about the unity and such things. Or with the Enclave Scientist on the Oilrig to help you and your tribe.

Fallout 3 contains not (or only very limited) such situations cause [as well mentioned in a interview by Todd] they do not like it to leave people with a feeling that they choose a option that cut them out of the game or left them with a feeling that the outcome could have been different. Of course such a design will minimise the difference in the experience of the game with each character you play. A course similar to Oblivion were regardless if you play a mage, thief or warrior your experience inside the factions and with the quests will always be the same. Regardless how many times you play the game.

Again, while this is generally true (counter example: be rude to Scribe Yearling and she doesn't talk to you anymore killing the Pre-War Books quest, there are very distinct endings for Trouble on the Homefront) the fact remains that in a single playthrough, you do those big tasks once. SO even though the Beth team tries to make every decision as wide as possible - with the minimum amount of cutting off options - you still have to pick one of those options in the end.

My experience - and this is only my experience - is that FO2's less forgiving nature "forced" (not really forced - just made me feel pressured) into playing EZ-Mode Small Guns specialist. FO3 - even though it pushes everyone towards ~~Jack~~ Master of All Trades - allowed me to actually develop significantly different playstyles and gear loadouts for each character.

I appreciate that you may not want to replay a certain situation again if your character is essentially unchanged. But if you pick a different path, a different solution - even though it was available to you the first time - still gives a different result.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:22 pm

Fire up FO2, get a random encounter, and watch the combat.

There you are, with your peons around you. There they are. They come at you...directly at you. You line up a shot or two. Vic takes a step and fires. Sulik takes a couple steps.

Enemy advances directly towards you...
Multiply that by several times, and then multiply that by how many combat encounters you have in a game.

At least in tactics they tried to flank you.

At least in FO3 they place themselves well, fire and maneuver, lay down suppressive fire.

FO1-2 combat was simplistic, andn that made it a poor implementation. It wasn't TB that was the problem, it was that combat was weak.

Its a work in progress, computer tech doesn't come as they do now a days. AI during that time almost doesn't really exist. But now we have the capacity to do those things, and things should be better in this game (and the ability to shoot your foe's in the eye and groin should still be available...). But what happen is its not really a Fallout. Its a game called Fallout 3...

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:23 pm

Fallout 1 & 2 were not made as shooting games. The most important thing in them is the storyline and roleplay.
Fallout 3 is the direct opposite, as said many many times.

As said by whom?

Stalker is a shooting game.

Fallout is an RPG. FP /= a shooting game.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:53 pm

Example - There are all sorts of dialog lines in FO3 that are marked [Intelligence], [Charisma] or even [Medicine]

Is that an example a good thing?

Example: Your character has high Intelligence and is speaking to Three Dog, who explains in just about every sentence that he is "Fighting the Good Fight!" A seemingly intelligent speechline shows up sometime during the conversation: "[Intelligence] So you fight the Good Fight?"

What's intelligent about that?

There are a lot of dialogue options during the game that use a stat or skill of your character, true, but most of them don't make any sense and are plain obvious, anyone could have said that.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:25 am

Its a work in progress, computer tech doesn't come as they do now a days. AI during that time almost doesn't really exist. But now we have the capacity to do those things, and things should be better in this game (and the ability to shoot your foe's in the eye and groin should still be available...). But what happen is its not really a Fallout. Its a game called Fallout 3...

Heck, even the SSI gold box games had better AI. So did the Ultimas. It wasn't a technology issue, it was a design decision. Combat has always been secondary in RPGs, and it still is. That's why ALL Fallouts, (except for tactics, which was a combat game) don't really do combat well.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:13 am

As said by whom?

Stalker is a shooting game.

Fallout is an RPG. FP /= a shooting game.

Fallout 1 & 2 is not a shooter game... The design said so, if it is then it should look like Doom 1... duh!

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 pm

Fallout 1 & 2 is not a shooter game... The design said so, if it is then it should look like Doom 1... duh!

Who said that?
-duh

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:32 am

Simplistic or not, doesn't mean it's a poor implementation. It's just a simple implementation. And as for FO3, come now, flanking and suppressive fire ? I didn't experience that from the Super Mutants (although they are supposed to be idiots), Raiders or Enclave. They did the same thing you'd decry FO2 for, go around corner, wait for them to round it and unload on them, easy does it. Wouldn't say it's a terrible implementation of FPS combat, it's a fairly simple one for this day - I'd hate to be playing old-school GR set in the FO universe, heh.

There's a section of broken overpass just north of Vault 101 which serves as a great sniper location to take out a batch of nearby Raiders. First time I tried it, one of the Raiders stayed at the bottom taking pot-shots at me with an Assault Rifle. I kept backing up over the edge to reload and regain AP so I could VATS her down with my Hunting Rifle. I'm like level 6 or 7, and the range is long enough that this is taking quite a while. One of the times I back-up, I get clobbered by the Lead Pipe guy.

Maybe I play too differently than you do, but I see flanking attempts (and am sometimes even caught by them) from Raiders all the time. In Mama Dolce's, I had a Chinese Sergeant run around the building in order to get a clear attack on my back while I was tied up with one of his buddies.

Even Super Mutants. I've seen Masters hold off on firing their Miniguns until the Melee Brutes had closed some of the distance. I've seen Super Mutants go for cover. I've seen the red lines marking where they are close in on me when I've taken cover - but never when they're armed with only Hunting Rifles - just the guys with auto-firing guns.

I've had all sorts of enemies open up with a grenade lob before rushing in.

Do I take advantage of the "come around the corner VATS ambush"? Yes I do. But I've also seen enemies refuse to come around that corner. It seems to work best if you get your Sneak state to [CAUTION] and not flashing [DANGER]. Doesn't that make a lot of sense?

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:49 am

Simplistic or not, doesn't mean it's a poor implementation. It's just a simple implementation.

Really.

So it's just a simplistic, not poor, that dialogue has been dummied down to the point that Special has little to do with it?

I don't think any of us agrees with that.