Fallout 4: Speculation and Suggestions # 5

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:52 pm

The amount of followers should be coupled to back to Charisma in the above case, though a return a more true to the original SPECIAL system is desirable in a next Fallout.
I think the amount of control you have over them should be handled a bit like Van Buren had thought of it. Not necessarily a new skill, but perhaps it would be a nice perk path for speech/charisma characters.
User avatar
Lew.p
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:31 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:34 pm

If Fallout 4 follows the practice of Fallout 3 that kept the style and game-play of 1 and 2, it will be another great achievement and be all we would want. Basically expanding Fallout 3 and adding some more and varied content.

Fallout 3 was totally in keeping with the Fallout series style and game-play, in keeping with both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Fallout 2 had many changes from Fallout 1, such as armour could no longer be looted from dead enemies. Fallout 3 went back to how it was in Fallout 1 allowing looting of armour (a big source of income), also Fallout 3 kept some of the many changes that Fallout 2 made.


As you can see, changes or refinements can and do occur between each game of a series, and each game is still a valid part of the series by keeping the overall style and game-play the same. Fallout 3 did just that, keeping in tune with the rest of the series, taking the best of the previous, tweaking and enhancing it into the best Fallout so far.

So that is the way to go.


Well that's your opinion of course, not a fact - and not an opinion everyone shares, at that.

You never could loot armor from enemies in FO1 either.

WIKI says you are WRONG.

Changes in Fallout 2:-
Also it is now impossible to scavenge armor from corpses, making the total scavenging yield per kill lower.
That also confirms the fact that Fallout 3 was "In keeping with the style and game-play of Fo1" (the original), by for instance adopting it's armour game-play, and Fo2. .... (UnDeCafIndeed and Andaius)

If by keeping with the gameplay, you mean that you can talk to npcs and shoot nasty creatures, then yes... fallout 3 totally is keeping with its predecessors.
... and the rest .

Indeed, I also don't know how it's keeping with the style and gameplay when both the style and gameplay of FO3 is completely opposie of the originals.
F3 completely opposite of the originals? Really? Interesting, considering Fo3 adopted play from Fo1 the original, and Fo2 the sequel.

Changes Fallout 2 made from Fallout 1, WIKI.
Fallout 2 featured a much wider array of items, weapons and armor than Fallout. Most of the items from Fallout returned, but had alternate and upgraded forms: the minigun, for example, is now joined by the Avenger and Vindicator mini-guns. Laser and plasma weaponry are now complimented with Pulse pistols and rifles which have short range and low ammo capacity, but deal massive electrical damage. Item prices were also increased at stores, making scavenging for items more important. Also it is now impossible to scavenge armor from corpses, making the total scavenging yield per kill lower. In addition to old, upgraded weapons, several new weapons were introduced for all branches of combat, thus making no one combat skill the best, and allowing the player to be powerful with any firearm. The range of enemies was also increased to a wider diversity. The end result is a much more complex combat environment.

Skills start off at a lower rate than the first game, and the various skills are also more important. Previously, skills like Unarmed, Doctor and Traps were used sparingly, but now, all skills are useful to a degree. The maximum level of a Skill was increased from 200 to 300. The Unarmed skill in particular was made much more sophisticated by adding different types of Punches and Kicks depending on the player's Attributes and skill level. Additionally, skills become more expensive to improve at higher levels. Several new Perks were added while most others were retained, allowing a greater degree of customization.

Karma is accompanied by Reputation, and while Karma affects the player on a whole, Reputation affects how the player is received in a single town. While Karma is achieved by doing good things and killing monsters, Reputation grows based on how the player helps the city, usually by completing sub-quests. By nature, Reputation and Karma tend to grow parallel to each other. As in Fallout, good/evil characters react differently to players with different Karma. Also, the player can acquire certain titles (Gigolo, Made Man, Slaver) based on their actions that also affect the game and how others react to them.

Recruitable NPCs were very simplistic in the first game, and the only extent of control the player had over them was controlling what weapons they used and telling them to stay at a certain distance. In Fallout 2, team NPC control is much more sophisticated, with the NPCs being able to level up, equip armor and be issued orders before combat ranging from when to run away to when to heal themselves. The NPCs also possess distinct personalities and characteristics, similar to previous games. The recruiting process is also more complex, with NPCs refusing to join the player if he has negative Karma or before a certain quest has been completed. Finally, there is a limit to the number of NPCs a player can recruit.

In the original Fallout, sub-quests in the towns and cities were usually solved within that city, with only a few sub-quests requiring the player to travel. The cities, fairly isolated except for caravans, were concerned with their own problems. In Fallout 2, however, the cities have a great deal of contact with each other, and with the sole exception of Klamath, actions in one city may affect the state of another, and sub-quests will often require the player to go back and forth from location to location to kill enemies and deliver messages and items. To assist this, the makers of Fallout 2 added a vehicle, The Chrysalis Motors Highwayman which reduces map travel time significantly. It can be upgraded several times in various missions, and it runs on the same nuclear cells as certain weapons in the game.

The game's overall theme matter is more advlt, with drugs and prostitution becoming major elements of the setting and the drug "Jet" as one of the major subplots. Profanities are also encountered more often. During the course of the game, players can join the Mafia, become a porm star, and engage in advltery. Slavery also becomes an important subplot, and players can either side with the Slavers or join their opponents that try to stamp slavery out. NPCs can be bought and sold as slaves during the course of the game.

So you see, changes/refinements can and do happen between games of a series.

If Fallout 4 keeps the same approach that Fo3 did following Fo1 and Fo2, then we will get in effect Fo3+++, and we (most) cannot fail to be satisfied with that.

Also, I was impressed with the balance of ammo distribution throughout the game in Fo3, making it necessary to use a degree of ammo-resource-management by being judgemental in how and what you blasted away at. Sometimes feeling that you had stacks, only to find that on occasion you had to restrain from blasting away, which also depended on where you were exploring. Keep that balance in Fo4, making the resource management of ammo, down to those judgements of play, and not down to weight.
User avatar
Mrs shelly Sugarplum
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:16 am

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:25 pm

Fallout 3 was totally in keeping with the Fallout series style and game-play, in keeping with both Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.


:rolleyes: You're going to have to explain that one, assuming you've actually played the first two.
User avatar
Melung Chan
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:15 am

Post » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:30 am

It would be nice with a main map like in Fo3 but also have over 10+ separete maps like The Pitt and Point Lookout included in the game. And instead of having settlements, have real real towns and maybe cities.

And the towns should have some form of working economy.

None of the settlements in Fo3 had any form of working economy at all.
User avatar
Jay Baby
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:43 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:10 pm

:rolleyes: You're going to have to explain that one, assuming you've actually played the first two.

It's already been explained above.

Repeat:-
Fallout 2 had many changes from Fallout 1, such as armour could no longer be looted from dead enemies. Fallout 3 went back to how it was in Fallout 1 allowing looting of armour (a big source of income), also Fallout 3 kept some of the many changes that Fallout 2 made.[/b]

As you can see, changes or refinements can and do occur between each game of a series, and each game is still a valid part of the series by keeping the overall style and game-play the same. Fallout 3 did just that, keeping in tune with the rest of the series, taking the best of the previous, tweaking and enhancing it into the best Fallout so far.
I'll say again rephrased:-
As Fallout 2 was "keeping with the Fallout series style and game-play" with it's many changes from Fallout 1 (unless you say otherwise), so is Fallout 3 with it's changes, as particular example of adopting play of Fallout 1 (the original of the series) in respect that armour can be looted off corpses, etceteras, so is indeed in keeping with Fallout style and game-play. That was something that Fo2 failed to adopt from the original Fo1, so do you say that Fo2 was not part of the series in style and game-play?
User avatar
Chloe :)
 
Posts: 3386
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:00 am

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:11 pm

As Fallout 2 was "keeping with the Fallout series style and game-play" with it's many changes from Fallout 1 (unless you say otherwise), so is Fallout 3 with it's changes, as particular example of adopting play of Fallout 1 (the original of the series) in respect that armour can be looted off corpses, etceteras, so is indeed in keeping with Fallout style and game-play.


So you're saying Fallout 3 plays exactly like Fallout 1 because of scant changes such as being able to loot armor?
User avatar
ijohnnny
 
Posts: 3412
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:15 am

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:35 pm

As Fallout 2 was "keeping with the Fallout series style and game-play" with it's many changes from Fallout 1 (unless you say otherwise), so is Fallout 3 with it's changes, as particular example of adopting play of Fallout 1 (the original of the series) in respect that armour can be looted off corpses, etceteras, so is indeed in keeping with Fallout style and game-play. That was something that Fo2 failed to adopt from the original Fo1, so do you say that Fo2 was not part of the series in style and game-play?

Though the game certainly has quite a few aspects from the original (both in gameplay and style) the shift from turned based isometric to real time first person constitutes too a large shift in gameplay to say it is in keeping with a straight face.

It need not be a bad change (that is a matter of opinion and subject of great discussion around here), but it is quite a significant one which changes core aspects of the gameplay.
User avatar
Georgia Fullalove
 
Posts: 3390
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:48 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 7:47 pm

I like how he says it keeping with the style and game play when both the gameplay style and the mechanics are totally different.
User avatar
Amysaurusrex
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:45 pm

Post » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:30 am

snip


You're talking about a set of few features against a complete turnover. Where Fallout 2 introduced some new features while keeping the core, F3 spins the whole thing upside down. Character skill and stat driven gameplay was turned into an FPS with lite rpg elements and you say that's keeping with the gameplay? Lootable armor (that seems to be the highlight of your point) is a feature that does not change the gameplay in any drastic way be it there or not.

Now, Fallout 3 is a good game and I play and enjoy it (to a point). But it certainly is not in keeping with it's predecessors' gameplay and style, as the game is built over Oblivions mold - wrapped in post apoc setting - instead of Fallouts.


I like how he says it keeping with the style and game play when both the gameplay style and the mechanics are totally different.


But, but we have lootable armor... B)
User avatar
victoria gillis
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:50 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:30 pm

But, but we have lootable armor... B)


It's official! Fallout plays like Neverwinter Nights. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Lisha Boo
 
Posts: 3378
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:56 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:07 pm

Nah, your wrong it plays Like Baldur's Gate! :P
User avatar
Rachel Hall
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:41 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:49 pm

More clothing options.
User avatar
Ellie English
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:47 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:40 pm

Nah, your wrong it plays Like Baldur's Gate! :P

Combat-wise, it plays like an advanced hybrid of http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wasteland and http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/pools-of-darkness. :lol:
User avatar
Mrs Pooh
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:30 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:40 pm

To the other like-minded happy posters as well

You're talking about a set of few features against a complete turnover. Where Fallout 2 introduced some new features while keeping the core, F3 spins the whole thing upside down. Character skill and stat driven gameplay was turned into an FPS with lite rpg elements and you say that's keeping with the gameplay? Lootable armor (that seems to be the highlight of your point) is a feature that does not change the gameplay in any drastic way be it there or not.

Now, Fallout 3 is a good game and I play and enjoy it (to a point). But it certainly is not in keeping with it's predecessors' gameplay and style, as the game is built over Oblivions mold - wrapped in post apoc setting - instead of Fallouts.

But, but we have lootable armor... B)


Shh, don't mention all the changes of play that Fo2 made, no-no, they don't count, ... but they sure made the precedent that changes can occur, and the game-play overall, with all it's interplay of mature content and of sixual themes, drugs and violence that Fo1 and Fo2 contained, along with other play, made Fo3 undeniably a Fallout series game ... even though there were improvements and updates in game-play, though there was nothing that could make somebody who was playing the game say that it was not so aFallout series game.

Yes I gave loot-able armour just as an example of a change of play (it makes no difference to play? really!?), add up the rest of the changes and it can't be brushed aside as being no-change. That character skill and stats have been refined in Fo3 doesn't change the game drastically, and all the rest is still there with as much proportion of RPG elements and combat as there was before. That you can shoot in first person, or third, nothing wrong with that.

That the game no longer stops real-time when you have battle does not change the core of game-play. Though you can stop real-time if you so wish, and have a self-imposed variation of turn-base play of shoot and move (there if you wish). It depends if you regard the old-style of imposed turn-based play as THE game of Fallout, disregarding all the other role-play and interplay of content, mature sixual themes, drugs and violence.

If you don't get that feel of being in a Fallout game-play as I do, a Fallout that has been greatly enhanced and refined, then sadly that is your loss ... and even mentioning Oblivion is way out of place, the games are worlds apart and nothing to do with each other.
User avatar
sam westover
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:00 pm

Post » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:52 am

The changes made in FO2 [from FO1] are welcome, the changes in FO3 from FO2 are not. :P

*But seriously... The changes from FO1 to 2 are more akin to converting a street bike into a mountain bike. FO3 is like converting that mountain bike into a gas powered quad runner. Sure you can still run the terrain, and jump hills and bumps, but that then becomes the only point of the ride, and is just no longer a comparable experience. I can totally see the identical argument had between Fallout fans, as happening between cyclists and Quad-runner aficionados, about why its the not the same, and about why each side thinks there preferred choice is best. :lol:

[*the catch is, that the location of choice for both is and always was a bike trail ~now newly renovated as a dirt track.]

As for suggestions for FO4... I'd like to see official support for up to 5 NPC's, have the Stims and ammo be scarce beyond belief and sold at exorbitant price ~ and [though I could never be so lucky] have the game, and general combat play a WHOLE lot more like NWN2.

That would be an outstanding compromise between the disparate styles in the series, and still be acceptable to everyone, and could still keep and incorporate FO3's First Person play. If done that way, then it would be possible to use combat modes similarly to Fallout Tactics, where the FPP player and TPP player alike, both have the choice of realtime (or NWN style) round based combat.

(Personally I'd like KOTOR2 style even better than NWN2 style)
User avatar
Jeffrey Lawson
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:36 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:41 pm

Shh, don't mention all the changes of play that Fo2 made, no-no, they don't count, ... but they sure made the precedent that changes can occur, and the game-play overall, with all it's interplay of mature content and of sixual themes, drugs and violence that Fo1 and Fo2 contained, along with other play, made Fo3 undeniably a Fallout series game ... even though there were improvements and updates in game-play, though there was nothing that could make somebody who was playing the game say that it was not so a Fallout series game.

It was never said it wasn't a Fallout game, heck they placed a 3 after it so despite varying views it can be considered a sequel to Fallout 2 (in the broadest sense). However the changes in Fallout 3 transcend mere updates. however numerous the list of changes between Fo1 and Fo 2 they were minor. Together they may have made a more enjoyable experience, but overall both games played reasonably the same.
Disregarding opinions on whether these are good or bad changes, Fo3 was quite a departure from major aspects of the game (the simplistic SPECIAL and change of perspective). It is rather undeniable.

For Fallout 4 I'd like AI behavior to depended on who/what I'm fighting.
Soldiers and mercenaries should be tactical, working together, covering each other and trying to use their combined equipment to their fullest.
Pack animals and Raiders should work together, but be a bit more direct about it. They might ambush you on a good day, but their approach is mostly brazen.
I'd be nice to see each enemy take a different approach, rather melee enemies going straight for you and ranged enemies going less straight for you while shooting.
User avatar
Bigze Stacks
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 5:07 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:51 pm

Uhm...

Without attaching some sort of value judgement to it, I think it's pretty obvious that Fallout 3 is quite a departure from the previous two games. Just take any two screenshots from those games, and it should be patently obvious. That doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing - it's not about "I like this," or "I like that." If you like Fallout 3, and I say it's a very different game than Fallout 2 in many, many ways - that doesn't in any way mean that I'm saying it's a "bad" change, or that it's a horrible game. Or that you're not allowed to enjoy Fallout 3.

For the game to be "good," it doesn't have to be keeping totally in-line with the gameplay and stuff from the original games. Reading through this last page, though - that seems to be exactly what's being debated (Sitruc... :) ) Fallout 3 is very different in terms of gameplay and mechanics. F3 has the same attributes and (mostly) the same skills - but they often don't do any of the same things that they originally had. Ditto with the levels and perks, as well. And sure, you're still guiding one PC through a devestated world, but the way in which you interact with that world has almost nothing in common with the earlier games.

Again - that's neither "good" or "bad." It just is.

And you can't point to Fallout 2 making incremental changes over Fallout 1 as proof of some precedent that any amount of changes to the original formula can still mean that it's still the same game at it's heart. That's like saying Halo Wars has the same gameplay as Halo 1 just because Halo 3 changed some things around. They're different games. They can both be very good. Just not always for the same reasons.

Frak, there's any number of changes Fallout 3 made that I'm very happy with. It's still not the same gameplay as Fallout 1, though. Because it just isn't. It doesn't control the same, it's not played the same, often has very different considerations that need to be made for your character to be successful, and even the underlying ruleset is very different. And that's okay.
User avatar
Anna Kyselova
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:42 am

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:48 pm

For Fallout 4 I'd like AI behavior to depended on who/what I'm fighting.
Soldiers and mercenaries should be tactical, working together, covering each other and trying to use their combined equipment to their fullest.
Pack animals and Raiders should work together, but be a bit more direct about it. They might ambush you on a good day, but their approach is mostly brazen.
I'd be nice to see each enemy take a different approach, rather melee enemies going straight for you and ranged enemies going less straight for you while shooting.

This made me think of something, possibly, that I think might be interesting to see. I'm not sure what it would look like, or how you'd go about it - but it might be interesting to see covering fire play a bigger role in a game like this. (Probably also has something to do with me re-watching the Way of the Gun the other day - which is basically all covering fire...)

That doesn't usually work well in videogames, though - AI is never going to be very effective at covering fire on the PC, when the player can basically just step out and take the hits. I've seen it work well enough in some FPS games against the AI, but that makes things a bit lop-sided, as well. Hardly a fair fight if the PC can pin down his enemies and control their movement; but if it doesn't work both ways.

I guess you could make bullets do more damage, to sort of force the player to have to worry more about keeping out of the line of fire. But I don't think I'd be all that big of a fan of that, either. (Mostly because I already have enough trouble keeping myself alive in these games...) I don't know, maybe if you could give the AI a suppressive fire option - where they could control a cone of fire that would be visible to the player and gave them certain detriments for running into it willy-nilly. Possibly some status effects, obscuring the vision, or even removing the targetting reticule altogether.

The idea of suppressive fire is to keep your opponent pinned down, to control their movement options. It becomes more of a chess game, really. But the thing is that laying down a hail of bullets only works if it prevents your opponent from sticking their head out - which is hard to get a player to do when they know they're going to be able to survive most of that anyway. Plus, for myself as a player (and like I said, not being terribly apt at these sort of games,) I'm not going to know that's what they're trying to do anyway.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Mostly I just liked the action scenes in that movie - and think it might be nice to see a game where the combat kind of runs like that. I'm not just not sure how you'd achieve something like that.
User avatar
james kite
 
Posts: 3460
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:52 am

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:12 pm

Vanilla Fallout 3 had way too much health, to begin with.
In a game like this it is expected you take some damage, but you should not just stand there and soak those bullets up.

My idea of covering fire was more that a few draw your attention, while the rest take advantage of that. Like one guy with a minigun, one with grenades and one with a Chinese assault rifle who keep fire on you, while two other circle around with shotguns. Since those attacking are a more immediate threat you focus on them giving the others time to sneak up on you.

That when you die, you think; that's smart. I can see why they are with the "Enclave".
User avatar
N3T4
 
Posts: 3428
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:36 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:29 pm

The problem with that is that any enemy tactics are completely negated with VATS. VATS = win button.

Take out VATS (it's nothing more than a poor illusion of turn-based combat anyway) & make the shooting mechanics + enemy AI like STALKER.
User avatar
Gavin boyce
 
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:19 pm

Post » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:24 am

I think it's pretty obvious that Fallout 3 is quite a departure from the previous two games. Just take any two screenshots from those games, and it should be patently obvious.


Fallout 3 has the same mature type content as the early fallouts, the same role-play type of game with character development via stats and perks, survival combat, exploration and the type of interactions that the early Fallouts had and the same type of scenario ... the core of Fallout, and of course a story line being slightly different in each case, as it should be.

Each of the series made changes in game-play from the previous, but always kept the core of Fallout, as did this last one, Fallout 3.

That there may be variations in how each basic core part is executed, or may not be exactly the same, does not negate the core of Fallout.

True there have been changes in graphics and viewpoints, but the core is still the same, stats and perks being at variance, the core still remains true, or that interactions may be a bit different, the Fallout core is still true.

Same with exploration, the graphics difference between now and early Fallouts being quite pronounced considering the time-gap difference, that does not change the Fallout core, nor does the core change because the player's choice of viewpoints are extended.

That survival combat may be executed a bit differently from the previous, that does not change the Fallout core, it does not have to be exactly the same execution of combat as it was previously to hold true to the core of Fallout. VATS still remains, slightly different, but still in keeping with the core of Fallout.

The imposed turn-base method of combat has been dropped as it should be, and is now left to the player to self-impose a variation of turn-base play of shoot and move, themselves. There is now a choice which is a good thing, it's not exactly the same, but the core of Fallout still remains true.

All the changes and alterations of execution of play in Fallout 3 (that some have been griping about) , are changes that have not altered the core of the Fallout game. As I play this latest version, 3, the core game-play and experience of play, holds true.
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

A suggestion of what I would like to see in Fallout 4 is to NOT have the imposed turn-base combat as of old, were that to be considered, there is no justification for such an imposition.
User avatar
Marilú
 
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:17 am

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:37 pm

WIKI says you are WRONG.


Actually, we were both right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) - in Fallout 1, you CAN loot armor from a few, select people, but during normal gameplay (ie., not shooting every town's inhabitants dead) you would never come across these (and you can't go kill BoS for Power Armor or anything like that). Random encounters for example have no enemies with lootable armor... There's a distinct difference between this and FO3 where enemies dropped everything they were using.
User avatar
priscillaaa
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:22 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:35 pm

Actually, we were both right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) - in Fallout 1, you CAN loot armor from a few, select people, but during normal gameplay (ie., not shooting every town's inhabitants dead) you would never come across these (and you can't go kill BoS for Power Armor or anything like that). Random encounters for example have no enemies with lootable armor... There's a distinct difference between this and FO3 where enemies dropped everything they were using.


Isn't that actually a glitch? I don't really remember, haven't played that in a LONG time.
User avatar
Victor Oropeza
 
Posts: 3362
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 4:23 pm

Post » Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:01 pm

Hmh no idea, could be... I actually just installed FO1 to this Vista machine (the original UK retail - and it worked perfectly!), falche'd the character stats and went on a rampage. I was able to get the armor from the Junktown guard standing outside the town gate, and one or two pieces of armor from killing the Gunrunners in Boneyard (again, not nearly from everyone). Swung by the BoS base next and of course wasn't able to loot any armor off of them.

But like I said, zip nada zilch from random encounter enemies... And I don't think the Khans members dropped any either? So basically the npc's you might kill during a normal playthrough very rarely if ever drop their armor, so in this regard the wiki is somewhat erroneous and the armor availability and advancement for the player character is pretty much the same in FO1 & 2.
User avatar
Amy Smith
 
Posts: 3339
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:04 pm

Post » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:18 am

See, Sitruc seem to be making arguement solely based on what he read and not what was actually in the gameplay. Because I too never remeber recovering any armor from enemies in my play throught of FO1. Just as they never dropped in FO2.
User avatar
Emma Louise Adams
 
Posts: 3527
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:15 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout Series Discussion