[Perception 6] So you're saying it's generic and dull?



Why not?
Just cause they own the franchise does not mean that it's impossible for them to create an option turn-based mode.
And it would please (hopefully at least) those who wants it.

Because you put it that way I honestly think that the only reason you find it shallow is because you are looking at it from a shallow perspective... but hey, I am only concluding that from a small statement, so I could be wrong.

I feel like the series should be in the hands of the people who have the most experience with it. But at the same time, the Commonwealth (very likely to be FO4's setting), should be in the hands of the people who thought of it in the first place. Hopefully, the writing for such a place would learn from FO3's shallowness. So really, Bethesda should probably keep expanding the area that they developed and Obsidian should develop the areas closer to the originals settings.

The fact that a modder had to fix a game isn't justifiable.

No, it wasn't.

Troika made Temple of Elemental Evil.That game ranks highest in my book for D&D style turn based combat. When it was released they discovered bugs (same as any large RPG), but after the first patch a few more were found, and they fixed them but...
They were forbidden to release a second patch by the publisher. Its not always unjustifiable. Fans fixed the game; that was the only option. Now the game works pretty well.

Dude, about half the people out there get hired because they are someone's friend. But that dumb mentality you're talking about, where people just laugh at violence and subtly is dead... well welcome to the family guy generation. What's a joke if you don't announce what the joke is? Expect a lot more of that frankly, otherwise you're going to be very depressed with the next 30 years of so.

Most devs frankly, have probably never played rpgs. They probably didn't grow up on them, and no they aren't going to understand the importance of stats. The fps game play over the turn based? Frankly I've always prefered the fps to turn-based when it came to computer games, because it always seemed to limit your combat. with fps you can lay traps, etc. Granted, at the same time they should make it harder to be a sniper and just kill everyone from a distance. Guns should be more rare, along with ammo, and I shouldn't be so hard to kill. I miss dificulty in games, and raising the level so it just takes more shots to kill someone isn't really the same as making an actual hard game. But it's like everyone just wants to go in the other direction and make games where it is virtually impossible to die, ever.

And I'm a huge fan of more npcs to kill, but they should have a purpose: why are 5 raiders standing out in the middle of nowhere, doing nothing?

My point is, while I agree with you on many points, the company doesn't matter as much as who you hire. Devs move around, just get the right ones. So I don't care if it's one company or the other, or the team up... doesn't really matter. Just hire the right people.



... and I very much agree on the voice acting, by the way. You got Liam Neeson? And who the [censored] cares? Anyone who buys a game because they think it's cool that famous person X is doing a voice in it, is a moron. Lets just put that out there... moron. And I don't think that's too harsh, no.

Why is it that people think that FO 1 & 2 fans are obsessed with isometric turn-based? That was never the center of our focus on the combat and skill aspects of the game. Our issue is and always was Character Skill vs. Player Skill. In a true RPG enviroment Character Skill takes priority over Player Skill. I shouldn't be able to tear up Enclave Patrolmen with a Plasma Rifle when I only have an Energy Weapons Skill of 14. This is why skill-rolls exist, because the Character should not depend on the abilities of the Player. The Player should depend on the abilities of the Character, because the Player assumes the role, position, and abilities of the Character.

I'm the one who said it. Perhaps youd've rather the Fallout franchise remained dead, because that's where it was until Bethesda came along.

I'll stand behind my statement; Obsidian's biggest strength lies in it's ability to write a decent story, much more so than Bethesda. Let's also not forget that New Vegas, which was developed by some of the same people who developed the originals (the same ones that so many hold in such high regard) released it in such a buggy mess that they still haven't been able to fix it right.

I still think that unless Bethesda learns how to write a decent story, that they should let Obsidian handle that aspect, and they can do the rest. I do believe that they listen to their fans, and that they learn from past mistakes, Unfortunately though, you just can't please everyone all the time. People will always find something to complain about, no matter what.

My point isnt that Fallout 2 is any less of a game, but the fact fans have to patch the game is just as poor on their report card. I won't play a blind eye though, I've noticed many F3 and F:NV managed to patch the problems faster than the developers, both Bethesda and Obsidian. I think it reflects poorly on any game company to say 'well, the fans will fix it. No worries.'

when you take away the turn-based combat however, skill rolls as a result become less important. You're always going to loose some of it to player skill, and frankly player skill should be a factor. The solution should be, why is it so easy to get a plasma rifle and find so much ammo/maintain it? strength and skill effecting you accuracy in aiming and spread is a HUGE step in the right direction. But I really think it's a matter of a balance between the two.

The advantage of turn based games over FPS (when done right) is the shear number of potential actions available to the player, and the challenge of figuring out the best actions to shape the course of events in your favor. ( Also TB games can usually manage more than five opponents at a time). Fallout's combat was risky ~even scary at times... Never happened for me in FO3.

***TB done wrong... has no advantage over anything, and may really be just a waste of time (with needless delays for the sake of waiting one's turn.)

If Obsidian announced that they would release a Classic gameplay DLC for Fallout New Vegas; one that added a top-down view of the battle and a scripted mode that mimicked Fallout Tactics TB combat. I'd be among the first to plunk down my $35.

Can't speak for us all... I liked the combat and skill use (primarily).
I liked that Special was intimately linked to combat and skill use. PC skill vs. Player skill should just be assumed in RPGs in general ~a given; and a flaw when not present. :shrug:

I think if anything Obsidian should handle the World Building, Game Balance, and Writing, and have Bethesda handle the Dungeon Crawling and Exploration aspects. The way the New Vegas was laid out was you begin in the outskirts and you move towards the actual city, Fallout 3 was just kind of... thrown out there. Also, Game Balance was horrible in Fallout 3, and improved in New Vegas (Improved, but not quite right). Writing we can agree on. What Bethesda does succeed in is Exploration and Dungeon Crawling, they had a bunch of neat things involving the power stations and the radio. Bethesda's dungeons are also much more intresting than New Vegas's "Kill X Swarm".

And my point is that its not always the developer's fault. You cannot often just stare at code and see that its a bug; Bugs will happen in all code. Studios are not always allowed to go back and repair the problem once its found out.

~In Bethesda's case they are both studio and publisher, so perhaps the situation is different with them.

I'm not saying that to some degree Player Skill has some sort of role, I'm saying that Character Skill needs a much higher priority. My solution is that for low combat skills to increase weapon sway and increase recoil.

I'd expect it to be the opposite, I mean, if people find out Quest X is broken, it's only fair if a dev said 'hey guys lets play through and fix anything broken.'

I never said stare at code, but I'd expect you'd play through the game and see whats broken, which is why I question Beth/Obs for saying they tested it and it was 100% bug free when they tried, either they only played for 5 minutes or someone doesnt know what a bug is.

The rest of your statement is agreeable, but this..

[censored] man, There were more companies bidding to buy the license for Fallout, Bethesda just bid the highest.

obsidian all the way.

That's not the reality. There are (realistically) thousands of interactions and situations that need to be tested just to make it loosely playable.

**Another reality (though I'm not accusing), is that at some point, you have a choice... Pay your Q&A to hammer on it another two months and perhaps find something, or release it and have the entire customer base hammer on it for a week ~then spend the remaining weeks fixing what they found wrong with it.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Following the idea that Bethesda has actually learned from their past flaws in Fallout 3, I'd actually prefer the idea of Bethesda continuing it's own series and Obsidian continuing spin-offs and such. I like the idea of the teams joining up, but the chance of that happening seems really slim. And if it happens, the chance of it all going horribly wrong seems likely.

Turn based however, would automatically bring you into combat when you tried to sneak up on a group of enemeis and shoot them. The sneak skill would loose half its effectiveness. It does increase the potential actions, like in NV even I can use vats even to shoot at 5 different people a lot faster than otherwise. And it was tougher in FO2, but I still like fps. I just think it needs to be done better, for instance at least don't have it so easy to find ammo and make the powerful guns very hard to get and difficult to maintain. Make stimpacs MUCH harder to find, because I always end up with so many it's absurd. And don't make my character himself so resistant to damage. I mean when I put on a simple piece of raider armor I shouldn't be practically immune to the machine gun fire of a half a dozen NCR troops. That's just stupid.

No it wouldn't, Combat is initiated by one of two parties. If you can avoid detection by the other party, then combat does not start.

It was completely possible to sneak up on foes in FO. Combat would only start when they saw you, or if you initiated it. If you hit first, and killed them outright (they did not get to warn others), combat could end with no one the wiser of your presence there.


I like FPS too, just not in Fallout :shrug: (call it opinion, but it does appear that the series was designed as it was with a purpose; and had little to do with technology of the day).

Bethesda didn't 'save' Fallout. The rights to the franchise was being auctioned off, and they won the auction. If Bethesda didn't get it another company would've bought it and made a Fallout 3.

In places like new reno, perhaps. But the random encounters it was much harder. I remembered it wrong as automatically loading you into combat, obviously. Though I don't completely like turn-based, but like you said about turn based, I just like fps. Though I agree, if I understand, that it's not perfect with fps. It can make for easy overkill. That's part of the reason why I hate the fact some things are so easy to get a hold of as well.

What I really wish in NV was that I could walk into an NCR fort and genuily feel fear about the idea of trying to kill everyone.

no...you could sneak in the originals easily without going into turnbased combat. you only go into combat if they spot you, or you try to attack. It makes much more sense that only your first shot would be a "sneak critical" anyway.