No it can't unless you have unlimited action points. It would also be an absolutely abysmal game if you played it that way.

Yep, couldn't agree more. Who cares what genre such-and-such a game is? It's just a clumsy categorization device. Surely the important bit is whether such-and-such a game is any good or not.

(Oblivion is still an RPG though. :whistling:)

:facepalm:

Why? So that you can use VATS indefinitely? That's the decidedly least RPG mechanism in the entire game. Granted your damage taken and damage given aren't spelled out on screen, they still are determined individually like in any d20 system.

Yes. Otherwise even with 100 in Small Guns and 10 perception it will be my skill as a player that will determine my character's effectiveness in combat even though according to his stats he should be able to shoot the fleas off a dog's back.

And yes VATS is a terrible system but I was under the impression that accuracy rates were determined by the character's weapon skills (albeit with anomalies like whatever body part is closest being easier to hit). If I'm wrong then it's still completely impossible to play Fallout 3 as a pure RPG so I'm not sure what the facepalm is for.

As far as I know VATS works with all variables, so skill, distance, appendage targeted, even some kind of standard windspeed. So even with unlimited AP, you're not guaranteed a killshot everytime. Regardless, at level 23 with weapon skills below one hundred I kill pretty much everything in sight just because the late game guns are so powerful.

I'm surprised at the windspeed bit. But skill, distance and appendage targeted are all excellent calculations to take into effect when determining your character's chances to hit in an RPG. Clearly you're not guaranteed a killshot everytime nor would that be anti-RPG as even the best character should still have a chance for failure.

I'm just saying that if you have to use the real-time combat system (and frankly at some point in the game you're going to have to) then it's not a pure RPG because it's my skill that determines whether or not my character makes the shot. We also have things like the lockpicking (although you could just use auto-pick to get around that) and hacking minigames which are the same problem. You can't play Fallout 3 as a strict RPG.

Ah, okay, I see where you're going. One question, though, using the lockpick as an example - would it be better to you to do it like in the first two games and have random skill-based probability of success (thus skipping the mini-game) as an alternative to the game or having to find keys to the doors? What I'm getting at is would it be better to replace the skills with items or to use the skills without the mini-game? I see those mini-games as necessary to the newer Fallout paradigm as VATS is, perhaps even more so.

Those minigames are only frustrations, and dependent on the player's abilities as opposed to the characters.

As far as I'm concerned skills without the mini-game.

The defining feature of an RPG has to be the primacy of character skill IMO. When I order my character to pick a lock, it should be his skill versus the lock's difficulty that determines whether he succeeds or fails (and potentially how badly he fails). Not my ability at a minigame.

Hmmmm. I want fewer dice rolls in my games, not more. Rolling a dice is a clumsy tool. Skills being tethered to character stats is fundamental, no doubt, but there are better ways of doing this than reducing absolutely everything to dice rolls. I really, really don't miss the days of my ability to perform first-aid or pick a lock being determined by a roll of an invisible dice.

That's where I'm coming from. If there were some sort of option, like with speech challenges in F3 that said you have such and such a chance of unlocking, that would be cool. But I enjoy the mini-games because they are pretty easy but still staggered based on the skill level.

I dont like Minigames, because they put player skill over charicter skill, and the whole percentage thing is the hole "roll the dice" thing

What better way is there to determine success or failure if not with probability?

Dear gosh, no more "percentage speech"

They are annoying

Along with the other minigames

good riddance if they want to remove them

What? Fewer dice rolls? When we were learning probability in maths at school, the only thing we used as an example all the time was rolling dices! It was like, what is the probablitity of you succeeding rolling two 6's? Same thing is, what is the probability of you picking this lock? Say, the lower percentage you've got in that skill, the more dices you've got. When you've got 100%, you pretty much got a dice with a weight in it, but sometimes even that one can fall on the opposite side and show a 1.


This, as I mentioned when we went through probability in maths.

Sure, but implemented how? A roll of a dice is a really reductive and crude mechanism by itself, and in computer gaming it's use is (or was) about technical limitations as much as anything else. A necessary compromise. Today, though, you can take a much more sophisticated approach, where player skill is directly informed by character skill rather than being replaced by it.

A system governed entirely by player skill = my ability to hit this barn door is entirely dependent on my own dexterity.

A system governed entirely by character skill = my ability to hit this barn door is entirely dependent on the roll of a dice, with odds governed by my character stats.

A system in which player skill is informed by character skill = character stats either augment or penalise my abilty to hit this barn door. The amount of dexterity required is entirely dependent on my character stats.

The transition from Morrowind-style combat to Oblivion-style combat was Progress. With a capital P and everything!

(IMHO)

and the transition of FO2 style combat to Oblivion-style combat was stupid.



(IMHO)

Not just stupid. It made no sense at all. What was the point of buying the Fallout franchise if they weren't going to stick with it in the first place?



And I disagree with Morrowind combat -> Oblivion combat being progress. I just don't see how moving from what appears to be a somewhat delicate RPG system (with its flaws, sure) to generic hack&slahs system can be viewed as progress. :shrug:

Fallout 3 as a TBRPG would have been much more difficult to market than FO3 as a FPS/TPS RPG.

I'd be ok with something like weapon skill affecting hit chance, but I greatly prefer FO3 and FONV being in real time. That's not to say I don't enjoy FO1&2's combat, I do, but I find real time combat to be considerably more exciting.
dikeybird makes a good point, I think; it's more rewarding for the player if his own skill, rather than a dice roll, determines whether or not his attack hits. Again, it engages the player more, and that's a good thing.

Yeah, I wonder how stupid it seems to ZeniMax Media's shareholders.

(I fully understand the traditionalists' ire, but I cannot share it.)

They could've done the same with their own IP. No need to bring Fallout or any other franchise that by it origins doesn't relfect their intentions in the picture. Buying something with roots and growth, and then derooting it completely like a weed makes no sense to me. :shrug:

Do you care about the wallets of Zenimax and its shareholders - or are you one?

All that changes is going from "strategic" to twitch, satisfaction. There was plenty of times where I did the proverbial "woohoo" when I go a lucky crit on a tough opponent. You can get the same enjoyment out of a well executed built or perfect battle plan. I dare say you usually enjoy those more since in real time, you don't really do such things. You just point and shot until they all fall down with no real forethought.

Also dikebird thats no progress that just a different style. I prefer character and player separation. Thats the whole meaning of stat based RPGs. when you add player skill into the mix like OB for instance it completely throws off the skill stats. Who cares if your character only has 5 skill in bows? You can get a hit from long range every time if you know how to do it right! Then you have the wonky counter balance of your ammunition or weapon magically doign less damage so enemies can fill up with hundreds of arrows before getting killed.

Same deal in FO3 with low weapons skill your still a crack shot despite VATS saying the character can only get a 1% chance to hit (If we use his stats) but do it real time and you can nail the guys 99% If I build a character to be the ultimate sniper character, I don't want him to be mediocre just because (If we go by your "progress") I don't have the coordination to line up those long shots.

No and no. And I mean no. I wish I was though, I might be able to afford a good gaming PC then.

Just making the point that how stupid a decision it is depends on your point of view, and from their point of view, it worked out pretty well.

From my point of view it did as well, but for entirely different reasons.

I sincerely hope that all future Fallouts (and retro-engineered F3 and F:NV) include an optional turn based system. There may be some complications with certain Perks & Traits but otherwise I don't see why it couldn't be done. Just have VATS activate when a hostile enemy sees you and add movement and menu access to combat as AP users. Doesn't seem to complicated. I guess the player would have to decide what type of combat they're using beforehand -- wouldn't AP be computed differently? I'd imagine TB would have more.

I doubt I'd use it; I prefer using my own skills governed by my character's stats. But if it's kept optional it would be a nice nod to the series's origins.

Plus, imagine the fun of all the threads complaining how they 'got it wrong'.

Given enough people complain New Vegas doesn't "feel" like FO3, I would say Obsidian would be working on more "spinoffs"