VATS is a game mechanic, built into the game. Therefore it is not cheating. Why is this concept so hard? If you want to complain about it, at least put it in the proper context. VATS was overpowered, it was not cheating. Cheating would be pulling up the console and killing every enemy with console commands instead of using game mechanics.

So if a game has, say, an option to give you infinite health it wouldnt be cheating because its built into the game? Very poor argument in my opinion.

yea fo3 was definatly kinda cheating, i hardly use it in nv though cuz you can get shot now in VATS

I still see it as cheating.
Even if it's a game mechanic, even if it's an unbalanced game mechanic, I still see it as cheating.

Yah, if the option is not under a CHEATS section, then no, it is not cheating. It is a fricking game mechanic. If you have to do something special to activate it, like in Read Dead where you go to the cheats menu, then it is cheating. If it is one of the MAIN game mechanics in the game, then in no way can it ever be called cheating. It was OVER POWERED, which is not the same as cheating.

No, New Vegas PROVES it was not cheating. Most people seem to agree in new vegas, it is not cheating. The mechanic has been balanced, meaning it is no longer OVER POWERED, thus proving my point.

I could use metal plates inside a pair of boxing gloves and enter the ring, what? It's not cheating! I'm just over powered.

Am I the only one who wants to try this now?

Vats in FO3 basically made you immortal. You could fatboy someone right in front of you with vats and come away mildly singed.

That said, VATS is part of the game. There are perks designed specifically around VATS, and it's a legitimate part of gameplay. If you use it intentionally to exploit some unintended game mechanic of it that would probably be cheap, but it's basically part of the fallout lore.

Weapon skill factors in to some degree regardless of VATS, but it means a lot more inside vats than it does free shooting.

just play the game the way you think it's fun, if you like the V.A.T.S use it, if you like to play sitting in a bathtub full of jello wearing women's underwear so be it.

you're so hardcoe, man i wish i was more like you

I don't use it because I don't like numbers deciding the outcome of battle. If I lose, I want it to be because I lost. Not some random diceroll. Vice-versa, too. If I win I want that win to be because I was the better combatant, not my processor.


VATS was a cheat in 3. Now it's just some random game feature I never use.

/Fails to detect sarcasm.
Thank you.

For those playing on the PC: There's the bullet time mod which slows time in exchange for APs (think Matrix). Much better than VATS imo.

I use VATS when I'm in a close range encounter with multiple enemies, this way I can get some critical shots in when I need them the most. Don't really think it's cheating, most of the times I don't even remember it's there.

I thought your accuracy, in V.A.T.S was determined on your skill selection? I don't know for sure, its why I am asking. Besides, cheating, I think is anything outside the developer created resources in the game.

I think if you enjoy playing using vats and you are playing a single player game (which you are) that you would be cheating yourself not to play the game the way you enjoy.

And really, that in and of itself is the beauty of a single player game. You get to play anyway you like.

I may have to replay the originals. I don't remember VATS showing up until FO3.

I use VATS more for locating enemies than actual combat. I play in 3rd person, and when I'm sneaking around, sometimes VATS will let me know where the thing is that's giving me a caution.

I do like it much better this time around.

I agree with the above comment, if it's the way you enjoy playing then go for it. If you think it's cheating, then don't use it. It also serves lots of purposes like mentioned above.

It's not even remotely akin to cheating. But the fact folks even have the debate may indicate that it meshes poorly with Fo3 and NV's FPS style. Many of you will remember how in the originals aiming was a natural extension of the turn based combat system. Aiming cost more AP per attack than normal. If you didn't build a character that was good at aiming or had a lot of AP, you were better off not using it. One or two more AP at the end of your attack could mean the difference between putting an obstacle between yourself and a dangerous enemy or remaining helpless and exposed.

Even when the hit percentage was high there was a risk to using it...though you could plan a character specifically to minimize that risk and exploit aimed shots higher critical hit chances.

VATS is just weird. I don't believe pausing the action and calling up shots complements the predominantly player-skill-based FPS experience that forms the majority of the play experience...and VATS' presence doesn't magically make the game's combat RPG-like...

It's a poor fit, - but it can end fights in a stylish manner. It may neither be strategic or mechanically interesting, but it does have some entertainment value.

I still can't figure out how it calculates its percentages. In FO 1 and 2 when you called up the aiming sillhouette a body shot always had the same general hit percentage of an normal un-aimed attack, with limbs/groin having lower or equal percentages based on your character's skills/perks + weapon stats.

In NV I often see a greater hit percentage on limbs then body shots, not sure if this is supposed to reflect armor or what....I just recently called up a long range VATS attack on a Bloat-Fly and it told me I had a better chance of hitting the fly's wings than its body..(?)

I routinely see medium range VATS attacks tell me i have better odds of hitting a human opponent's head, legs and arms than their body...again maybe the game is calculating armor or thinks the body is somehow obscured.

Short range attacks usually seem to be 95% across the board.

then why don't you just go play shooters instead of complaining about a rpg being a rpg?

It wasn't V.A.T.S. in the originals, there was simply a mechanic where you could spend extra AP to aim at a specific body part rather than dead center.

It wasn't some special alternate game mode, just another combat option.

I have only used it close range and see 95% mostly everywhere as well.

So it can't be an RPG and be fun too? An RPG has to have an incredibly boring combat style? An RPG has to treat the player as a liability to be considered an RPG?


Let us look up the definition of an RPG. Wikipedia is a nice, handy source, so let's check their article out.



Hrm, I see nothing there against an RPG being an FPS too. Going by this definition, even that abomination MW2 can be considered an RPG, as technically speaking you're in a game, playing the role of some cannon fodder. You are 100% responsible for advancing what pathetic narrative there is, and there is some semblance of character development. Even if it really only amounts to your loadout and whether you throw your grenades at the ememy or your own guys. Erego, even MW2, what might be the worst PC game ever released, can be considered an RPG. Food for thought, isn't it?

Hrm...Oh, hey, what about this part?



Do kindly note how nowhere does it say RPGs have to have a boring combat experience. Nowhere does it say they can't be a shooter as well. NV fits that to a T, and yet it plays quite nicely as a shooter.




Now if you're done being some elitist jerk who thinks he has a right to tell other players whether or not they are allowed to play an RPG differently from how YOU think it should be played, I have an RPG to finish. While I'm busy shooting my way through some more Deathclaw while plotting what my last perk should be, you might http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game. If that doesn't open your eyes, fine, but don't go telling people they shouldn't play because they don't like VATS, or because they want to be the reason they win or lose in battle. Nobody died and appointed you Overseer.

It isn't actually in FO1 and FO2. At least not by the term VATS. However, during combat, you can at any time target specific body parts so in essence, it is there. (I really miss targeting eyes to blind folks, that was such a great strategy)