I do have to ask what kind of combat do a true RPG have? Is it turn base?

The rules have not remained the same. The point of an RPG is that success in actions is completely determined by the character's abilities. This game relies on the players abilities as a base and them throws some stats on top of it that only slightly change the outcome of attempts. It's an action game with slight RPG mechanics, not an RPG.

Also turn based combat is not some kind of graphical setting in the game. Its a gameplay mechanic. Gameplay mechanics will never be outdated unless they are inherently flawed which no matter how terrible you may think it is, turn based is not.

Eh, not really. You can have a first (or third) person RPG. It just has to rely entirely on character skills instead of player skills. For example, you can aim at something as the player but being able to actually hit it would rely on the character skills.

Yup.

Just like people misuse the word:"gay" to refer to homosixuals.

Newsflash to humans: words, terms, and descriptors have entirely static definitions. Otherwise, language is completely undermined.

Success is determined by my characters abilities.

There is gun sway, and damage is dependent on my character attributes, just like most every other RPG.

DnD, the prime example of combat rolls, has strength determining my melee damage, along with my feats.

In 4 strength affects melee damage, along with perks.

So, how is this not an RPG again? Your argument is full of holes so I'm having a hard time seeing it.

Also, turn based is quite outdated, and this is shown by its severe lack of representation. What works sells in a capitalist market, and guess what stopped selling some time ago?

I'll take turn based for $100.

Because skills affecting the damage of a bullet instead of the ability of the character to hit something makes no sense.

What 'sells' has nothing to do with it. It's about what works. Turn based still works and it works better.

You realize said skills did the same thing in past games right? I guess strength affecting melee damage is silly across all games?

Or a gunshot to the head with the same gun doing 10 damage one time, but 20 another. That makes much more sense than a gun doing a staple amount of damage at a fixed skill value all the time. My 10mm doing 10-20? Perfect! Despite me having maxed skill.

It always doing 15 damage when I'm at 100 skill? Ridiculous! My bullets should be roulette wheels!

Yea. That makes perfect sense. See all these holes you've got? You should patch them up.

As for what selling mattering, it kind of does in a system where you vote with your wallet.

People voted and turn based has come up short in the industry lately.

It doesn't work anymore;it's out dated

Strength isn't a skill... Strength is strength. It makes sense that the stronger you are, the harder you hit and the more damage you do.

In Fallout 1 weapon skill meant the ability to hit certain areas on the body. Higher damage meant you hit a more vital area, not that your bullets did more damage.

Ugh and I'm not going to argue with you about what is outdated any more because we're clearly talking about different things. I don't care what the opinions of the masses are. I still enjoy turn based combat and I also enjoy other forms of combat. So nobody is going to tell me it's outdated.

The better question to ask is, "What kind of combat do specific series have? Is it turn base?"... And that answer is not always... but Fallout certainly should.

Indeed. A method is only outdated if there is a better method of doing the same task. A new method, does not obsolete an old one when the new one does not fulfill the same task or facilitate the same feature.

CD's don't obsolete records, MP3's don't obsolete CDs ~or records; it's just that the majority of listeners don't care about audio fidelity, and have never heard the emotional impact of anolog records... The MP3 algorithm actually strips most of that out.

One can say similar of even hammers. The pneumatic hammer doesn't obsolete the finishing hammer... Finishing hammers can sink nails without scaring the surface; pneumatic hammers always scar the surface.

You mentioned skills affecting damage is ridiculous. Yet they have always been influenced by some stat in every game, so I'm not sure where that complaint came from.
In my original post conceding it I mentioned strength and you brought up skills affecting bullet damage for some reason.


Perks can still influence your ability to hit acertain body part through sway, but I guess shooting a guy with a rocket launcher and sometimes doing 35 damage and others doing 100 makes sense because I hit a vital part with a rocket? Despite the explosion engulfing his body with both shots?

Yes, maybe you should take a break from this, it isn't your strong suit.

And you're more than welcome to enjoy it, just as you are more than welcome to watch silent comedies from the early 19th century.

Don't come around claiming it's a viable way to do though entertainment, because it clearly isn't.

The only way a Player Character has any agency is if it can control itself, sorry but I don't have to ask my PC to act and hope it agrees, the only time I've seen PCs act this way was in scripted ways in games like Silent Hill 3, some bad Diablo copycat, or under berserk/confuse statuses in a Final Fantasy. It is always player agency enacted through the PC. What you are talking about is how the game enacts a players choice through the PC. Both check for environmental factors, but one is more fluid and interactive. Agency is when an individual is free to make their own choices outside of control, whether that be fate, deity, or the Player. Final Fantasy 12 is closest thing I've seen where a PC is given some minimal level of Agency through the Gambit system, but that can be taken away at any moment.

The problem here is that you're still using your player skill to take aim, which is a little demanding if it works like an FPS and makes it really frustrating when a shot you aimed clearly just arbitrarily misses; see Morrowind. Maybe if it was a lock-on feature instead of FPS-style, but I dunno, I feel like that offers less chance for stat-influence than having gun/character stats that tangibly affect recoil, accuracy, damage, fire rate, etc and still feels fun.

As for turn-based, I still think it's a valid way to handle gameplay. But not Fallout's turn-based gameplay. It feels like Morrowind's hit/miss gameplay, but painfully slow. But Chrono Trigger, or Pokemon, or most older FF games have really solid turn-based combat.

Some people feel that marginalizing themselves with unrealistic demands harking back to the old days somehow separates them from the masses and makes them look good.

All the fallout games have been excellent in my opinion and the modern versions have allowed one of the greatest game universes to live on and bring many more people to it.

I love the old games and still play F2 from time to time because it's just a classic, but for the universe to continue it must modernize and the fps element has breathed all new life into it. It also works, gunning down hordes of enemies in a corridor or pulling off your own twitch headshot is just cool and adds to the game.

I've got hopes for the new system as it appears to be. Layered perk trees should give us variation and hopefully will prevent making a god mode character quite so easily as the previous skill system did.

My concern is the yet again high importance of high int, I know it makes sense for a smart character to do better but with xp gain attached as well as (mentioned previously, if wrong sorry) necessary levels for things like guns etc isn't it too important?

Finally, wasteland 2 is excellent and if u feel truly nostalgic for old fallout then that's your game. Yes it has flaws but it has that old school feel and an excellent level of writing and player choice to boot IMO.

1. Fallout is not "every game." I don't care what skills do in other games.

2. Yes, influence but not determine. Yes, different parts of the body take different amounts of damage but that doesn't matter. What matters is the damage a rocket will do.

3. lol you are such a closed minded person

Yeah I understand this. Which is why I said above turn-based does it best. Aiming in a first person game could be considered the same as moving your cursor over an NPC in Fallout and clicking to attack. Although if it is done in real time it does add extra pressure on the player.

Meh, I actually prefer Fallouts turn based system to the JRPG approach.

You do realize I was talking about every other fallout game, right?

Yea, you really should quit at this. Different parts of the body take damage, yet my pistol sometimes does 10 damage, and other times does double that despite using ammo and hitting the same location in fallout 2.

I'm not sure what you're saying with 3. If you want to go play turn based games, go for it, but that genre is dead and gone, and you only need to look at the industry to realize that.

You're more than welcome to remain close minded and pretend is a viable option to use in a successful game though.

1&2. I see what you mean and my response is still the same. Fallout 1/2 didn't output the same damage like Fallout 3 and NV does. Its because in Fallout 1/2 when you aim you're only aiming at the area of the body. The damage relates to the actual spot in that area that you hit and its based on your skill. In Fallout 3/NV your damage just rises statically. It has nothing to do with where you hit on the body.

3. You are closed minded because you consider everything 'old' to be junk and you want everyone else to have the same opinion as you.

The turn-based market is far from dead. Look at PoE, Wasteland 2, Torment as well as JRPGs. Just because they aren't as profitable as non turn based games doesn't mean they are dead.

You are mistaken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph6GIWOCiO8



Ideally, you select a target and hope that they manage to hit it; and to kill it even. That is how it was designed to work in most PC reliant RPGs; [with good reason].

This is a flaw in FO3 IMO. All they needed to do was auto start VATS the instant combat commenced; and they would have been far closer to the mark for a Fallout sequel.




Fallout's gameplay was Fallout's, and the other's game play was for the other games.

The skill-adjusted damage approximates hit probability.

In Fallout, if your character has a 50% hit probability and a weapon that does 10 damage, then he will average about 5 hits for every 10 attacks, and his average damage for 10 attacks will be 50.

Divide 50 damage by 10 attacks, and we get his average damage per attack, which is 5.

Now move that character into an FPS. Players want to score a hit when their aim is good; they don't want chance to rob them of their hit. So, we get rid of the character's 50% hit probability and adjust his damage output instead. We reduce his weapon's damage from 10 (what it really is) to 5 (our calculated damage per attack). The player probably won't hit every time he attacks, and so his average damage per attack will be less than 5. Exactness isn't important, though. The main thing is that we have something in place to represent the effect of the character's skill on combat.

They shouldn't have a choice in the matter; they shouldn't be affecting the aim of the gun. Even FO3 is not ~totally a shooter. Shooters are where the player should affect the aim of the gun; RPGs aren't [supposed to be] about shooting.

Being non-profitable is quite dead when it comes to an industry. No decent company is going to make a turn based game a franchise, and those that do are small projects like the ones you listed. If Bethesda were to throw this much money into a game, just to make it turn based, it would sell horribly and result in train wreck of a release.

In 3 and NV you realize head shots do more damage right? They have an increased damage, so, where you aim continues to matter, just like in past games.

Shooting in the arm causes an enemy to drop their weapon and greatly impedes their aim. Chest shots cause them to flench more often and legs are crippled.

Seriously, you claim aiming at a location doesn't matter, but that is so false I have to ask are you just arguing out of ignorance at this point? Have you played these games before?

@gizmo, you pull up one film from the 70's I assume. That was a gimmick at the time.

That style of movie as a genre is gone. Just like turn based. It doesn't sell well, so no one intelligent is going to point it in a triple A release.

Fallout games are games set in the fallout universe, that's all that it requires to be one. Halo wars was a halo game. Oblivious was an elder scrolls game despite not relying on dice rolls like the others.

GTA china town was still a GTA game despite being top down instead of pulled back like current games. I still stole cars and killed police, just like I'm still making a character and wandering the wasteland while saving the day, like I've done in every other release so far.

You can keep grasping at straws buts it's only getting embersssing at this point.

It does not matter in the same way.

** Missing any of those aimed shots does not put the PC in a vulnerable state for having used the time... Think instead... of VATS working as is, but not slowing down anything , and offering zero damage shield ~~that might make it matter in the same way.

(That's also complaint #1 of what's wrong with VATS.)

It still matters, and more so considering each location has immediate effects.

Do I shoot this raider armed with a light machine gun in the arm to cause him to drop it and lower his damage output? Or aim for the head and try to take him out early, but a lower chance to hit since it's a small target.

I'm making these decisions while being shot at, of course, as one would imagine in an encounter with a raider, instead of him taking turns shooting at me like a gentleman.

I may sway when I zoom in and miss his head since my gun perks are lacking or if I do hit, my lack of perks invested means I didn't do enough damage, and voila.

It matters, but the no mutants allowed crowd would rather cover their ears and yell no it doesn't wouldn't they?

By that ~[I hate this silly expression, but]... By that logic, All one needs to be Halo 6 is to have the world setting. So Halo 6 could [mechanically] be Disciples 3 done in the Halo setting; or TES6 could be Dawn of War 2 done in Tamriel. No it is not so simple as that.

This *logic* would lead to the thinking that a Dodge Viper body on a Pinto, is a Dodge Viper mark II.

That doesn't matter if when taking the aimed shot, the PC is enfranchised by the action ~and set to get a bonus from it.

The reason the option even existed in the series, was to accept a risk for the chance at a reward... There is no risk in taking a free shot from behind magical armor.
APs don't mean anything in FO3/NV.

I am going to disagree with this part, as having different results in damage is actually pretty realistic. In your earlier comment about the rocket skill does have an impact on what kind of damage a body will receive, it shouldn't have a 65 point swing, but it should have some variation.

Additionally, here is why I think Skill Perks came to be.

Take a look at FO3, skills were quite is easy to get to full. Between armor, books, perks, leveling, or drugs skills could easily get to 100. Obsidian noticed this and tried to reduce the ways to increase all your skills to 100, they did it by reducing the amount of books, having less 'magical' armor, and very few perks that increased skills, but they still had drugs and magazines to help you if you really wanted that small boost. The problem with FONV is that when they started doing DLC, they realized that they wanted to add more perks, which meant more levels, which meant more skill points at new levels. Thus FONV eventually had the same problem that FO3 have, as it is quite easy to have every skill at 100.

When BGS started developing FO4, they knew about many of these problems and probably were wondering how to control the skill portion of the game. They could've tried to rework leveling to control skills, but found that this probably slowed the game down too much, made somethings too difficult to give the player more freedom to explore anywhere and actually engage in the events there, or they perceived that this would irritate players. So, they could have thought, " why don't we just reduce the max skill level and work around that in leveling?" The problem there is you still have a system that, when you in all likelihood, add DLC expansion is going to result in the same scenario of characters with maxed skills, as players will likely demand additional character progression in new DLC.

The simplest and smartest decision was to get rid of skills and have them tied to something that makes players choose between new fancy things to do or have the basics filled out. This gets rid of a system which is full of control issues, simplifies the game mechanics, and gives the player the option to either play a highly 'skilled' character, a freak of the wastes, or even a class (or multi-class) like Caravaneer, Thief, Asssassin, etc.

It makes your choices for how you set up your SPECIAL, what perks you buy, and how you interact the world that much more important, as you can't just wait to be the Master of All Skills anymore. Any great RPG (or game in general) finds ways to improve it's systems, by cutting systems that get broken too easily, attracting more players, and adding options that players want (hence Bethesda's love of the Modding community).

This is like telling a kid they are getting a cell phone, and then giving them a flip-phone that can only dial home and 911. The expectation that comes of the name demands uncrippled functionality. You said it yourself... Simplified game mechanics.
(That honestly doesn't deserve the Fallout name; because the name invokes the reputation, and it hadn't lived up to it with FO3, and likely won't with FO4... But it'll sure pass the reputation of FO3... for fans of that game.)

You're changing engines and cars at that point. A dodge body on a pinto is a dodge body on a pinto. It hasn't got the engine or other aspects a viper has that makes it a viper.

That's also entirely different from an entertainment medium.

A Star Wars movie in 3D is still a Star Wars movie, despite making use of new technology, and it is still a Star Wars movie even if Jedi don't make an appearance. A game set in the halo game is a halo game, regardless of who is in the universe, as they are operating inside the halo universe and following the rules of said universe. They would encounter flood and whateve else are running around.

A game set in the fallout universe is a fallout game. You can cry and stamp your feet about the engine all you'd like, but you're just acting like a child in doing so. Your precious developers of 1-2 have expressed their opinion on these games and they were favorable.

And you do know you took full damage in vats in NV right? Again, have you played these games, or you're arguing entirely from ignorance at this point?

If I use vats in NV I'm probably going to get killed because I'm standing around whole getting machine gunned down.

The 85% or whatever it was reduction in 3 was way over top, and I doubt no one will argue that, but it was the first time the system was in a fallout game, so expecting it to be done perfectly is a bit unreasonable.

If TES 6 ships as an rts, it's still a TES game. It won't be an RPG, but that isn't what makes the franchise TES, that's a genre. Rather it would be good or bad depends on if you like rts games or not, but saying its not the elder scrolls despite containing all things in the elder scroll universe is just childish.

Fallout 1 and 2 were over the turn based genre, but that doesn't work in the 21st century; it has a niche audience