I don't think compounding the problem fixes the problem.

I'm starting to like the Dragon Age combat system, which could be modified to use (or opt to use) first person.

The way it works is that by default, you control your PC. You can pause at any time and queue up actions for your PC and your party members. )This could be done using AP for Fallout use). Additionally, there are presets for automated tactics for the player characters to use if you choose to not control them. You can, at any time, take control and play any of your party members, using their skills and attributes.

It's a system which, I think, would please some of the traditional fans.

I personally like the semi-turn based style of gameplay adopted by BioWare in Baldur's Gate myself. While I wouldn't mind seeing this at all in Fallout 4 it really doesn't translate well to consoles. The Knights of the Old Republic games felt clunky on consoles because how the system is setup is only efficient with a keyboard and a mouse with a PC oriented UI (which is why I'm glad I bought the PC versions). From my understanding the console versions of Dragon Age are just as clunky as KotOR was on the XBox.

I don't think I'd mind the Dragon Age approach, either. Certainly there'd be room for some modifications, but I do like having that programmable AI for myself and the followers in that game. (Plus the ability to simply pause the game at any point really helps as well.) There's really nothing even "semi" turn-based about that approach, but I am a fan of it.

It probably does work better on a PC than it does on console, however. I remember reading an article a week ago or so saying just that - that the reviewer definately preferred playing the game with a mouse and keyboard as opposed to a controller. On the other hand, (what with the little slots for AI actions and such,) DA's approach did remind me a lot of Final Fantasy 12; which did the same thing and seemed to work just fine on a console. I'm sure with modifications (and using the DA:O approach as a model, as opposed to simply copy/pasting it onto a Fallout game,) it could concievably work pretty well.

+1 vote for the Dragon Age approach from me too - I always liked real time with pause anyway.
But for this to have any point, the player needs to control a party instead of a single character (even with ai companions).
Otherwise I'm with NT8: if the game is part FPS, it should at least be a good FPS.

As far as varied weapons go fo3 did a decent job with pistols then.. Hrm?

Sawed off shotgun or combat shotgun. Assault rifle or CAR. Hunting rifle or sniper rifle. Lincoln repeater which unique but I'll add anyway and that it.

Big guns was way slacked. Minigun and that it for big gun conventional weapon. I think they should add SAW for big guns skill and or maybe a few other light machineguns.

Even more worse is sub-machine guns. One kind...meh.

Auto-reload is a minor annoying thing but if your using the gauss rifle in a situation where you will be open to immediate enemy counter fire you are using the weapon wrong cuz I view it as a long range sniper weapon.

Improvements and more options is always a welcome addition.

I don't really see how improving the system is compounding to the problem. Making the FPS system more effective by itself won't make the game any more combat-centric than it already is, it will just make those inevitable parts more enjoyable. I never played Dragon Age, but from your description it sounds like it could work well with Fallout. But I really don't think it;s realistic to expect Bethesda to move away from the already established format (which is, as I said, IMO, a shame). I've already accepted it, which is why I'd like to at least improve it.

ui wouldtn mind the DA:O combat system.. just for the love of god, stay away from the movie aspect of DA;O.. its nott hat i dont think FO could use some more in depth story.. but you dont even really play DA:O for half of it. you watch it. thats cool and all, but if i am out to do a mission, i dont want to be sidetracked by hours of dialogue that i cant skip through even if i have already heard it.

The original Neverwinter Nights used the system, and that didn't have party based gameplay at all. In fact NWN 1 was a lot like Fallout where you controlled one character, and your "companions" (all one of them, with an extra in HotU) were AI controlled.



I call it semi-turn based because characters take turns in performing their moves, and that strikes me as the essence of turn based :shrug:. It's certainly more turn based than a FPS system.

if you have the restr4aint, you really can play it more tun based.

next time you come up on a group of raiders, Use vats only.. While myserious stranger, Grim reapers spirit and action boy perks kind of make it easy, i think it cam be done..

do a vats attack.. but that only. after your volley, if there are any survivors, (should be in lower levels) dont attack them real-time. let them attack you.. move around if you must, equatint it to to a high dexterity sckill, if you must.... then once your AP is filled, you can attack again. turn based.

True. I loved NWN1 - I played it exclusively for months (some mods allowed more than 2 companions, and if you add familiars summons etc. you could end up with quite a crowd). But both in NWN and in the old Fallouts one thing kept bugging me the most: I needed to have complete control of my party! The system seemed perfectly fitting for that, it felt kind of a waste not allowing me to do so.



Hey I've done that: I was almost out of ammo fighting super mutants with a low-level character.
It didn't feel turn-based, it felt like I was trying to cheat - without managing to remember the correct code. :shrug:

cheat how? i mean.. lets say you are attacking 3 SMO and just using VATS. they can still get the first move if they surprize attack you.. you use your AP points and provided you dont go into live combat mode afterwards, they get their turn attacking you.. i did put the caveat that it would be like have a really high dexterity, because you can still move/dodge.. but heck. you could just remain stationary and let them have their volley if you wanted to play that way.. let me know how that particular battle scenario would work out, because i dont think anyone would fare well.

Turn-based, however, is about more that just being civilized and taking turns shooting each other, however. That's all I'm getting at. There are stategies that are emergent from the style of play involved. It's all semantics, though. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.

Back on track: I would like to see more character development the next time out. That's a problem I have with videogame RPGs, is that it's all in my head; the evolution of my character's emotional makeup throughout the game is left almost entirely on my shoulders. I'd like to see more ways to emote my motivations behind my actions, have NPCs challenge me on those decisions, etc. If that makes any sense. So much of my character is a blank slate for me to project onto, that sometimes it all feels a bit "empty," to me. I don't think that's an inherent property of keeping the game "open," however - simply that we haven't yet stumbled on a proper way to implement it.

i guess i agree that its not truly the same.. i mean, you cant use a turn to heal with AP and so on.. just the combat can be turn based...
haha guess i'll just be happy so long as its not all drawn out like DA:O


Id like to see more long term changes.. like the pitt.. nothing ever really happened there, if the coup was sucessful or not, the cure is neverutilized.. it would be cool to have some almost secret stuff that would come to fruition a great while after a quest like that is completeed.. like a year in game, suddenly the pitt is transofrmed into an actual city as opposed to roots meets bartertown.

Well yeah, but turn based strategies are also present in semi-turn based (which is less of a mouthful than real time with pause I think ). On top of that everything takes turns: drinking potions, casting spells, and of course stats and skills playing a part in how many times a character can attack in one turn. The only real difference is that you don't have to click "end turn", and you don't have to stop time if you don't want to. The turns occur in real time instead of stopped time; which you can generally change if you want to using the auto-pause functions included in those types of games.

Now back to Fallout 4; a Dragon Age system would make Fallout 4 more of an RPG than Fallout 3 was I think. One of the underlying problems with combat in Fallout 3 is that because of the FPS gameplay it focused on player skill rather than character skill, and that should not be an element of an RPG. The player's skill should be inconsequential as the player is supposed to be playing the role of a character in the game world; someone just out of the vault shouldn't be able to tackle the best gunner in the wasteland with a 10MM just because the player has a lot of experience with shooters, but you can in Fallout 3 because it relies on a combination of player skill, and enemies are level scaled.

Now admittedly the Lone Wanderer had a bit of gun experience as a boy\girl with that BB Gun James got him\her for their tenth birthday, but they had no experience against live opponents who could shoot back. I'm willing to accept the Lone Wanderer being better than the Vault Dweller and Chosen One with a gun after living a sheltered life because of the BB Gun though, but using that plot element again in Fallout 4 wouldn't be a good idea. I personally think it's better to use a system that supports character skill over player skill because that is the essence of an RPG anyway.

i would argue that an PRG still hinges on the player skill level. . knowing what each class does to use to the best of their ability, when to use those abilities and what enemies to use them against in the most efficient way..

i find myself wondering how hard it would be to make a toggle between true turn based, or something closer to the current combat system, so it would cater to both playing styles

Perhaps it would be clearer if it was called 'player physical skill' or something.
A bit silly since the the 'physical' part only includes fast and precise fingers and wrist's movement... (+ reflexes) but it's something to do with muscle in any case.
(after all a game that requires no kind of 'player skill' either physical or mental, is probably better categorized as a screensaver)
The idea is to have enough time to do 'complex calculations' to decide on the best movement.
It's the geeky way to do things... but geeky is what RPGs traditionally are


I wouldn't have any such request personally.
Better focus on one thing and do it right, instead of trying to please everyone - with the high risk of making something something below average, which is what nobody wants. (except perhaps, in the case of FO4, Bioware )
I would like a turn-based system, but if it's out of the question make it real-time and make it good.
What I'd hate the most, would be a good real-time system with the option to switch to a crummy turn-based one as a 'favor'.
It would feel more like an insult really.

i am eternally the optomist on this front.. im certain it could be done.. maybe not even as an in-game toggle, but as a main menu game start mode..
really, if a decent real time/RTTB/Bullet time system is already in place, only needing a few adjustments and countless examples of turn-based are out there, if any time at all is spent on it i think they could both be great.. the only problem is how to make the game to accomodate both, i guess.

i am more of an action lover as far as my videogames go. but ultimately, i just want something that isnt a pain to use and provides me with countless hours of enjoyment. if a more historically accurate PRG turn-base system is used to make that happen, thats cool too

Yeah, that.

To elaborate on a traditional RPG system a bit... even if you've mastered the gameplay mechanics to the point where you know every single way to exploit them it's still the character's skill that is winning the battles. Sure you can utilize strategies and it's your character build, but your reflexes and general skill in first person shooters isn't what is saving the day. You're not aiming the weapon and your reflexes aren't keeping you alive when going up against multiple enemies; it's your character that you're role playing as who is performing these actions. If a character has minimal talent in Small Guns they shouldn't be able to hit much of anything with a pistol, but in Fallout 3 as long as the player themselves can aim like they usually do in a FPS it's practically impossible to miss.

Agree, and, of course, this is why I don't want Fallouts to be EVEN MORE of an FPS. I can handle the run-n-gun aspect of FO3...i don't sue VATS anymore, but this is about the limit of my physical abilities at playing games. If it became more FPS like, with requirements for super-human reflexes, abuse of AI/game mechanics, and all the other little tricks people use for beating console games, I'm not going to be able to play it.

Ive skimmed through this thread and I have some suggestions as I really enjoyed Fallout 3.

Better Dialogue: To be honest I never even played FO1 or 2 but after I finished FO3 I wanted to know more about the first two so I watched the dialogue and cinematic screens to get caught up on what was going on and I have to say that the first fallout games where much better written and witty than the 3rd. I would really like to see more thought put into responses in the 4th version.

Good/Evil Path: I found it pretty difficult to stay on the Evil path with the quests. I think a good way to remedy this is to actually have 2 main quests. One on the good side and one on the evil. Whatever plot it may be you should have to make a choice in the very beginning to determine how good or bad you will become.

More History/Knowledge: There was a decent amount of it in FO3, reading into insights from people that made logs on terminals before and after the bombs fell. I found it really interesting. I would like to see more of the same in the next one, but maybe expand that where you might actually find newspaper articles right before the bombs fell, or even live video shots. Im sure if the technology for dropping nukes was there, then you should have some sort of video archive you can stumble upon.

I was very disappointed in the Arlington Library as I thought it would have tons of knowledge in regards to some of the history. The Museum of History was pretty good about it, maybe Im too greedy but I would love to see more.

Bugs: Ive encountered my fair share of bugs on the game, seemed most prominent after I got the add-ons for it. The game actually froze on me on multiple occasions on Point Lookout. Would like to see anything like that eliminated in the future. It wasnt too big of a peeve for me, because realistically every game is going to have something faulty about it. It didnt take much away from the gaming experience I had with it.




I wanted to respond to this too. I would love to see China incorporated into the next game someway. Maybe they can add a twist to where China join up with either the Enclave or the BoS in some diabolical scheme.

I would wish for more random encounters, and more thorough resets of areas. I think that building a random quest generator would do big things for the game, as it would make encounter zones different each time the player goes to them - as the randoms in the area would be different. Fallout3 had some of this, but not to the level that we built with Sojourn (and that was just a MUD). Bethesda could learn alot from the mudding community on how to make areas "re-newed", as on muds the players do many fo the same zones night after night, day after day, and still have a Great time with it. By introducing more random factors to the game, every area will potentially have something new for the player to see - encouraging them to go back again and again - prolonging the longevity of the game.

Miax

I agree, being evil in F3 is mostly being a raving murderer. It's also hard to swallow somebody who blew up a nuke in the middle of a town would bother going after the Enclave and starting the purifier. The two main quests would certainly make more sense, but I'm not sure how practical it would actually be.

I think asking for two main quests is a bit too much: every RPG has more content than any other game as it is.
People often want a 'second path' but whenever I get one I think that a third one would be nice... and so on...
(yes, I know - many games have multiple paths - don't start with the examples ... but no matter how many there are, I always end up feeling there could be just-one-more)

I think a working alternative would be to have a goal with less obvious... eh... morality(?).
For instance, trying to save or destroy the world is somewhat obvious.
Instead of that the main quest could be, for example, to find a hidden treasure of some sort
(like Indy's Lost Ark... or something like a water chip for that matter )
- in process of finding it, the character might have to do good or bad things etc.
Eventually, once the 'treasure' is found the character might choose to give it to the good guys or the bad guys or the poor guys or to whoever pays the most or use it to destroy or to rule the world or store it in a top secret government warehouse etc.

Yes, I'm a bit bored with saving the universe... I want to do some good old treasure hunting.

But that is just a matter of the way that skills are implemented rather than the fact that the combat style is like an FPS. You can have massive accuracy mods in an FPS. My FO3 has significant accuracy mods.

Either way, I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Any videogame in which player skill is "inconsequential" would be awful. It certainly isn't inconsequential in DA. I have a lot of fun playing on "hard", and I know many others won't play on anything other than "easy." And it has nothing to do with the cunning of our respective characters, which would logically dictate combat performance in a strategy game if player skill were truly marginalized. What you really want is for character skill to have a noticeable impact. I think it does in FO3, but it's undermined by the fact that it is far too easy to increase character skill. Think about it. If you plan your character properly, how many levels does it take to become the greatest small-arms marksman on the planet? That's the more important problem. That and the VATS damage nerfing, which prevents the higher difficulty levels from being difficult.

Player physical skill was inconsequential in Fallout 1&2!
(And in DA it can be effectively limited to how quickly you can hit space to pause the action)