Flank is a generous way of saying they run to either side of you. I've never seen any advanced maneuvering from any NPC's. And when you get surprise attacked its because you maneuvered yourself into them without looking.

Yes, "flank" is a way of saying that the opponents run to either side of you - to attack your flank.

I'm not saying that the AI in FO3 is just like playing against real live people - but they do in fact use cover, they do in fact move in ways that make sense for what weapons they're carrying, they do in fact lob grenades at you before rushing in. Some of them do try and find alternate routes to get to your location.

Maybe you're right, and all of it is just pathfinding bugs - but I have been caught off guard by plenty of enemies in this game, and I don't think I'm the only one. Anyways, the point is that this AI behavior (with regards to combat) is better than it was in FO1/FO2. I think that point is pretty valid.

It could be randoom behaviour of the AI.

I never seen them realy flank or trying to look for cover. Not in the sense as in Far Cry. But frankly most shooters doesnt have very believable AI.

I think it might looks sometimes like Raiders use cover or flank. But the movements are really the same as Oblivion. Sometimes it would happen a person is walking toward you with a bow and stops behind a wall that is just high enough to aim at you and it would look like they shoot out of cover. But most of the time its not intentional. It very similar with Oblivion. I played the game for some time and I never seen any enemy may it be enclave raiders or Bos "intentionaly" using cover or trying a "serious" flanking manouver. All that happens is that they sometimes run just away if they are cripled or loose their weapon. But that was it. As said 90% of the time regardles if human enemies have a gun or just a sharp stick they charge at you usualy like headless chickens.

In comparision with games like FEAR, Far Cry or even HL1 the AI in Fallout 3 is still in Kindergarden.

Yes, most of them open except when they devolve into flaming and spam.

I wasnt disapointed with it, except for the ending. Proper location endings should have been done. Admittedly this might have caused some issues with DLC, but no more than the strongly-encouraged end game death.

1. I'm taking your "shooter" comment to be referring to FarCry - because you obviously don't mean to be calling Fallout 3 a "shooter".
2. The point of this was to compare enemy AI in FO3 to FO1/FO2.
3. That enemies try to run away when they are crippled or their weapons are broke seems like an example of good AI behavior, n'est ce pas?
4. There is no number 4 - it's bad luck.
5. Profit!

Is that really fair though? I mean, we've already more than established that the writing was the strong point of the first two games (and by "writing" I mean everything that encompasses) and Fallout 3 sorely lacks in that department, comparitively. Now when comparing AI from a game 10 years prior...is that quite fair? In 2008 I'd expect a bit more from a company than instances of "Hey, that was kinda cool...I wonder if that was AI or a glitch?" I'd agree that the idea of "flanking" is a bit exaggerated here.

It's pretty obvious what Bethesda focused on and they've stated it themselves quite a few times "Cool stuff" and "Environment" and while I disagree entirely with what the Bethesda developers consider "cool stuff" I will agree their wasteland is beautifully constructed. However, I did not sign up for "Second Life - The Wasteland Edition" when I became a fan of the series. Not only that but considering I've been a fan of the series since it's conception, I've come to expect much more from a game than what Fallout 3 is offering. That's great that tons of people can go and collect their bobbleheads and decorate their houses (if I rolled my eyes right now they'd fall out of my head) but I want a game that makes me think twice about the moves I make and gives me a reason to keep playing beyond "Wow, this looks great!"

the game does have some drawbacks SOME but not enough to make it a disappointment to anyone but the turn based and original fallout people and their to busy wanting fallout 3 to die so they can say it svcked when it didn't. F3 is a great game with lots of choices and ways to play

Well of course it isn't - The Rule states that in any comparison between FO1/FO2 and FO3 - you MUST ONLY consider the WORST of FO3. (there's an eye-roll statement for you)

Geez, I didn't even bring this up - if you look at the thread history, someone said that at least the enemies in FO3 didn't line up and wait for you to knock them down like bowling pins - this was in relation to whether the TB combat was well-implemented or not. But, as usual when discussing these things it all came down to "this svcks in FO3" or "FO3 is crappy because of this".

FO3 is not "Second Life: but with extra Wasteland". FO3 is not "Doom with a Fallout label slapped on it". FO3 is a Post-Apocalyptic Role-Playing Game - please don't pretend it isn't. Or if you insist it isn't - provide some rationale for why you think so. Seriously, a lot of the old guard have already conceded that FO3 is a good game, entertaining in its own right - nowhere close to FO1/FO2 but still not total crap (just like you are doing here) - and yet everytime a discussion about FO3 comes up (and on the FO3 boards, that's quite a lot) - it's all "shooter" this or "shame about all the bells and whistles - would have been nice to have some game instead" or "Steel be with you? it is to larf - talk about misreading the Lore" or "game for brain dead morons - which is all console kiddies are".

You think the bobbleheads are a bad idea? Why? People love them - they are charming and wonderful and add interesting character to the game. They, imo, have just the right kitschiness to fit in.

[Full Scale Rant Mode On - note Aqualamb, most of this isn't directed at you]

I've given up on trying to get you guys to consider the game a little more objectively. No one is even willing to admit that "Special Encounters Don't Count" is a STUPIDLY LAME excuse for why the previous games had better "design" or "versimillitude" or hewed closer to The Lore or doesn't completely demonstrate a ridiculous level of double standard. Now, I'm just on getting people to stop pretending that FO3 is some sort of lame shooter with no RPG elements whatsoever. Because it isn't. Or that it's a totally crappy game. Because it isn't.

What are you people so scared of? Look, even if FO3 is ridiculously awesome and does x, y and z better than FO1 - and even if x, y and z are RPG elements or whatever - that doesn't mean that you have to stop loving the original games. It doesn't even mean you have to stop preferring the original games. So stop knocking FO3 on baseless and totally irrelevant claims. A lot of you have already proven that you can pay this game a complement without having to vomit immediately. FO3 is not the Anti-Christ - heck FO3 isn't even the younger woman who just married your divorced Dad. What FO3 is, is the third RPG in the Fallout series.

Fallout 3 may have its fair share of flaws - but constantly harping on them, all while refusing to acknowledge flaws in the previous games - especially after they are pointed out - that's crazy behavior. But making random stuff up to slag FO3 with - pinning faults on it that don't exist, or exaggerating the ones that do exist to massive levels? I mean seriously, what is the problem. You don't like FO3 - great, this game is NOT FOR EVERYONE. But please don't lie about it.

And now, I think I'll try to calm down.

No, quite the contrary. I think it is a pretty darn good game. I just expected better from the series and know that it could be better if certain elements were improved. Calm down, son!

Every game has flaws. Look at a game hard enough, with an axe to grind, and you WILL find lots to talk about.

It's not the flaws that bother us as much as the axe grinding behind it.

I couldn't have said it better my self.

--

And about the AI of the game, I think its good enough for the game.

But I think some users want to see it like this. One raider finds his ally dead s/he should be able to act on it or be more cautious and inform an ally, or hears gun firing/fired s/he should be able to check it out or be more cautious. (Tracking foot prints is a bit difficult to program... so we might as well forget about it... for now)

But the thing I want to point out is how do they know that its you who killed them if you are wearing a Raiders Armor w/ Headgear... I think we should consider this at long distance, until they find out who you really are by talking to you -or- spot you wearing a pipboy at short distance. The game already offered this luxury. As .

Well, I don't consider myself an axe-grinder since I didn't have to look hard at all to find the things I'd like improved. As I said in a different thread to be discontent and keep your mouth shut is a mistake, especially for a consumerist society. We can't just keep saying "Eh. Good enough for me" if we don't truly feel that way just because it's easier. FO3's done and it's not going to get any better so I'd rather talk about the things I'd hope Bethesda improve next time than the things I'm ok with in this game.

As for "A.I." I couldn't actually care less about it all. I'm just in threads commenting on the current topic like everybody else. If somebody slightly derailed the topic, it ain't my fault!

Cute rant, sort of funny given your comments about, heh, fans of the other games. Special encounters not counting as breaking the reality of the game world isn't a "stupidly lame" excuse, they are called special encounters for a reason - also I think you using that for people claiming, rightfully, that FO and FO2 were better than FO3 by design is a total strawman. The special encounters were, I'm guessing, put in as "cool" stuff (something you should be quite familiar with a developer doing), and in FO2 they may have overdone it, as I'm sure everyone has heard arguments for that.

The bobbleheads, seem to be put in there to cater to MMO fans or something, items that magically boost your stats, hm. Not a huge annoyance but was a headshaker.
I'm not sure why you're so sensitive about people saying something bad about Fallout 3 though, not like they're beating up your mom or insulting your religion, after all.

Special encounters broke the game, especially FO2, because they were not consistent with the game environment. Put one out of game reference in, and it's overdone. Put several in, and it's a gamebreaker for roleplayers. Some folks liked it, some folks didn't.

Looking at Fallout 3, I have to laugh a bit, at this.

Those special encounters were like commercials while trying to watch a TV movie.

Or rather, you could say, since Fallout 1 invented them, they helped create the atmosphere which people originally fell in love with.

To each their own. It annoyed me intensely, and I'm glad they don't appear in FO3.

Sure they do, just in a different way. Things like the Roach King and the entire Canturberry Commons quest/situation were just like those special encounters. They were silly and if you must compare them, game-breaking. I don't feel that way about them and quite liked them. It does however make for a weird argument when people try to say Fallout 3 wasn't silly in the way Fallout 2 was.

Being silly isn't the problem. Breaking immersion by injecting out of world references was the problem. Monty Python has nothing to do with Fallout.

Silly things in Fallout 3 can also break the immersion, then. But for the most part when playing Fallout and Fallout 2 I didn't feel any less "immersed" (God I hate that word) by the special encounters - I figured that were random events, much like the "You are ambushed by X" ones, but the reality of the game world and the story kept me gripped.

Why do you hate thet word? Aren't you a roleplayer? Immersion to me is the ability to get lost in the game world. The easiest way to break immersion is to inject something outside of the game world...something that doesn't fit. That's what many of those special encounters did for me. Seems like a common complaint too, so I'm not the only one.

I'm glad you could enjoy the game the way it was, but for me, FO2 would have been much better with special encounters which fit the game world and didn't use outside references.

But to me those special encounters were indicative of the spirit, humor and tone of the series and they were things which actually enhanced my immersion and love for the series. In 1998 I had never played a game quite like Fallout and those things which you speak of were things which shot the cupid arrow through my heart.

Because it borders on PR-speak, heh, I guess a case where usage mutates meaning. FO2 had special encounters that fit the game world, the Morton brothers (I'm not sure how many he had, but geez did I meet a lot), the bounty hunters, Enclave patrols etc. Those aren't the "funny" special encounters though. Fallout 3 has outside references as well though.

Fallout 3 is not silly in the way Fallout 2 was. It isn't.

I just finished Canterbury Commons and The Superhuman Gambit yesterday. Those "superheroes" have back story. You may think it's a particularly crappy back story, but it's there. The biggest "plothole" is that there isn't an explanation for how Tanya manages to control ants (other than having grown up with them) - the fact that the Giant Ants in FO3 are varied may help explain this. A visit to Shalebridge before or after Canterbury Commons helps put the whole AntAgonizer thing in perspective.

Now compare to The Bridgekeeper, who is there solely because college-aid kids love reciting Monty Python skits verbatim.
Or the time-travelling gateway from Star Trek.

Even The Roach King - a guy who's snapped and is somehow friendly with Radroaches, who lives alone and spends his time sitting on his Roach throne in the middle of the wastes. Not only possible, but consistent with the FO3 world.

The issues that people have with the "silly" characters in FO3 all basically come down to "they're crazy". Well, it's the Capital Wasteland - no surprise that some folks went crazy. Seriously, show me ONE example of something in FO3 that actually breaks the gameworld. Then compare to the TARDIS.