It's because the "improvements" have gone to the wrong direction (to those disappointed with it). The gunplay is probably "better", but "better" how? Better at reflecting your character build with more fluid and tangible response like in a roleplaying game, or better at providing viceral and accurate FPS experience like in a dedicated shooter? That's the issue.

No.

Barf?

Well, as I indicated in the rest of my post, I don't see Bethesda's games as traditional RPGs. The combat in their games is action-orientated, not rigidly stat-dependent, so improving the "FPS" experience makes more sense to me. Next thing we know, some people will be expressing their dismay that F4 isn't turn-based...

I can agree with that. They certainly aren't anymore at least. Still, it is somewhat disheartening that they seemingly aren't able to get past their single design model even between different franchises.

Did that already. Years ago.

I'm still baffled why people worry that taking a gameplay mechanic, that is literally the entire game, making it better equates to making it worse. Let's just not fix what is broken, right??

Making it better doesn't make it less of an RPG or less Fallout, just as what we have now doesn't play super great and make it less Fallout.

jackiechanmymindisfullofetc.jpg

I doubt it, Fallout 4 will be it's own thing.

No, better gunplay isn't a bad thing that will suddenly make Fallout into a cowadooty clone but the thing to worry about is if they keep "streamlining" the RPG aspects then it will most definitely end up as something akin to Far Cry.

OH GOD. BETHESDA ADDED MORE CUSTOMIZATION AND PLAYER FREEDOM AND GIVEN THE MAJORITY OF THE FANBASE EVERYTHING IT IS WITHIN THEIR POWER TO BESTOW.

IT'S CALL OF DUTY NOW!

GG WP!

FF AT 20 GUYS! TARIC IS FED! TARIC IS FED!

I just started a new F3 build. Even the hunting rifle wobbles considerably at 35 in small guns.

Yep, you said taking good ideas is a bad thing. I could care less what game it's from. It could be a good idea gained from Battletoads, but as long as it actually IS a good idea there is no point to complain about where it came from.

Just as an example it's a good idea to make all characters on an even playing field so you don't have characters like Oddjob from Goldeneye who had an advantage because they had made him short for some reason and you could easily shoot over his head unlike the other characters.

I was a bag boy in a grocery store when New Coke came out. To this day I remember customers with cart fulls of regular Coke trying to beat the arrival of New Coke. My god, New Coke was awful.

Ha! That's good. That was good.

There's already a pretty good discussion of perks replacing skills in another thread. While I was relatively on the fence regarding the 'absence' of skills, I can say that I feel a lot better about it after having heard the various arguments regarding the subject. I won't comment on the dialogue, because we haven't seen enough of it to make that conclusion. We had 3 short dialogue interactions. Two of which were with a robot and a dog.

As far as the improvements of FPS shooting somehow hampering rpg mechanics? Nah, the logic does not follow.

My point of view on this is very similar to my point of view on getting rid of the skill system. I can assume most, if not all, can agree that the shooting in Fallout 3 (and to a lesser extent FONV) wasn't ideal. Something needed to be fixed, some would like a more skill/turn-based heavy system, but the big issue with that is when you apply that to a first or third person viewpoint where you aim at a target and fire, you have to hope that it hits. You could turn this into a system where with each encounter you have tbs elements, where you have actions and skill matters more, but in a game where you freely run around, to have it slow down for when you encounter an opponent doesn't flow well.

Where as the other option was to make the combat seem closer to an actual FPS, in this system you have the flow between running around and immediately going to combat feel rather natural (they also seem to added this idea to conversations). Skills become a little less important than they were in Fallout 3 and NV, but there are ways to still have some 'rolls' involved, by accounting for gun accuracy, removing the light-up of the targeting reticle (why does the site not believe this is word?) to make it so possible visual bonuses given by perks and weapons matter, and have perks that do a good job of boosting your base gun skills. Sure the 'skill' check has been quite minimized, but you have other rpg elements that are being used (Perks, either those that boost your shot or that allow you build guns that do the same thing).

You can keep the combat the same, but many people have shown a distaste for this. It comes down to making a decision for what kind of combat system they felt would fit with the game they are making and the story they want to tell. They felt that improving the FPS elements was the better idea, not that I think they really thought too much on going back to what would almost be closer to an rts/tbs, and would make the game flow easier. I ask what would you have done if you had the option to work on the systems already in place in FO3 and FONV?

I personally feel that the way they are improving the shooting aspects of the game are the closest to how BGS seems to make games and allows for the player to have more freedom with potentially more risk (especially since they don't seem to have cover mechanics). I am okay with improved flow over increased skill involvement as I am still making a character that I feel will be more unique than in the two previous Fallout games because they removed the skill system, I am still improving my character throughout the game (and even get to improve my environment and gear a lot more), I am still going to be able to choose how I interact with quests. I also don't think that this means the meat of the game is necessarily going be any trimmer or that any less an RPG.

Great, now I'm going to have the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCXMDPU61QM stuck in my head all night.

I don't know - I've been having a good couple of years as a fan of turn-based games (Wasteland 2, X-Com, Massive Chalice, Dead State, etc; and Blood Bowl 2 and X-Com 2 on the way among others.) Generally I prefer a strong focus on character skill in my RPGs, but I like a wide variety of games and I think if you're going to have a lot of real-time combat in your game, then you may as well tighten up that aspect of the gameplay as much as possible.

I think the trick is finding a nice balance where the stats you do have in the game have a real and noticeable impact while still having tight real-time mechanics.

My own pet idea for Bethesda's take on the Fallout games was to have a circular aiming reticule that shrank and grew to represent the possible spread of your bullets based on a variety of factors (ie, high STR recovers from recoil faster, high AGI makes you more accurate while moving, PER tightens your aiming quicker, etc.) But I think just some way to incorporate your stats into the impact of the weapons you use would be nice - there's more than one way to accomplish that.

I would be surprised if there weren't Perks that improved your accuracy, or at least some role for Attributes in there. What I'm really hoping for is finally a mechanic that's equivalent across all skills and actions. It kind of bugged me in Fallout 3 and NV that some skills operated on a gated system (Science ranks only mattered in increments of 25, whereas other skills used percentage roles.) That just seems right to me - I don't believe you need actual die rolls to make an RPG (I've played plenty of tabletop games that didn't use die rolls at all, or even alternate methods to simulate chance and outside factors,) but you do tend to need a ruleset that's equivalent through all uses of it's core mechanics.

Anyway, I'm rambling tonight.

This is Bethesda, I know what sort of games they make. I happen to enjoy those games, but that's my opinion. I've not always been a fan of their ruleset implementations (I didn't mind that they slimmed down the attributes in Skyrim, for example - but the manner in which they implemented the remaining three made it pretty much a pointless mechanic - the game would have played effectively the same with nothing but Skills the way they ran with that.) Theoretically, a bit of refining can make for a tighter game - it just remains to be seen if that's what's going to happen with Fallout 4. But as far as trying to improve the real-time combat that's something I would have hoped would be an obvious one - you spend a lot of time shooting things in Fallout, you're going to want to tighten that up. No matter how granular the ruleset is going to be it's not going to be any fun with a clumsy real-time combat system tacked onto it.

Exactly. When you've got a real time setting with sub par combat (Fo3), it's only natural to bring that more inline with other mechanical aspects. Skyrim really tried to do this and while it's not quite there yet, it's by and far a lot better than what was presented in MW and OB.

It seems like the system is pretty deep to me and your SPECIAL choices will matter a whole lot more without skills. So it might actually be a stronger choice RPG than Fallout 3 was.

I see both sides of this argument. Personally, I like the idea of better shooter mechanics. For the RPG purist or people that are turned off by twitch reflex games, I can see where there will some concern. If only Bethesda had an option to turn on/off the RPG controlled aspects. Something that, maybe, slowed down time and allowed for a random percentile chance to hit something. I mean, for the RPG purist, stopping time altogether might be nice. You could highlight a limb or the main body or even a weapon and hit some sort of engage button to let the game shoot for you. That would be great.

Okay, (truly) sorry for the snark, but isn't VATS exactly what the RPG purists are looking for? Obviously it bases your percentile chance on angle, range, on of the SPECIAL characteristics and probably a related Perk. That's probably as close to the pure RPG experience as you are going to get in Fallout. I imagine mods will allow you to reclaim the FO3 time stop ability to plan your shots at your leisure. I imagine there might even be a console command that controls the time slow rate. Probably going to be public knowledge within a day or two after release.

This isn't going to become a twitch shooter. People are just over-reacting like they always do to any kind of news. I think if people liked Fallout 3 they should be fine with this. Until they show us that they are removing RPG elements to make it into more of a shooter, I'm not worried.

What i know so far about f4 i give the game 100/100.


The new stuff seems simply amazing

Honestly, I am not worried either. I play Bethesda games more for the exploration and sense of discovery than I do for the mechanical aspects of the underlying RPG system. Plus, I am a long time PnP roleplayer. I can do a lot with my imagination no matter the RPG system I am using. My previous post was just to point out that there is a built in alternative already. Besides VATS, I am sure that whatever SPECIAL stat (Perception or Agility) and/or the number of Perks into a weapon class will dictate damage. They used a similar system for Skyrim so I see no reason for them not to follow suit here.

Well, I would like to see better shooting mechanics, and if they borrow from COD, they will certainly have that. They can still make them character based, but Fallout 3 was barely character based and the mechanics svcked, so at least they can fix one of these.

As far as shooting goes, the more F4 resembles COD the better.

Relying on character skill in a game where the player can freely aim and freely move around is a bad idea. Games that insist on being character skill based should stick to turn-based combat.

I also hope damage is more realistic. If I'm fighting a human, a head shot from the most modest 9mm pistol should take him down. If it doesn't, let it be because he was wearing a helmet and not because he is level 50.