Whoa, now.

I'm pretty sure later on in my post I described F3 as a "real-time RPG that has distinct Shooter elements incorporated." I wasn't saying Fallout 3 is an FPS - I fully agree it's an RPG first and foremost. We can debate what portion of the game is FPS and what portion of it is RPG until the cow comes home, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

All I'm saying is there's a lot of combat in all the Fallout games, it's a combat-intensive franchise. To say that combat isn't the point of the game is sort of overlooking a large focus of it (and again, that applies to F1 as much as F3.) I spent alot of time in Mass Effect talking to people in between missions, but I don't think anyone's going to argue that combat doesn't play an important role in that RPG, either.

Even if you're avoiding combat, you're still dealing with combat. I can get through Splinter Cell without using my gun at all (beyond scripted moments where there's no choice.) But it's a combat game (and with SC, that's really all there is to it) because sneaking past your enemies is still dealing with your enemies. It's just another route through the game.

Sorry about that...it wasn't directed at you.

NP I had a feeling it wasn't.

I do agree with you on this, I think. Fallout 3's certainly an RPG/FPS more than a FPS/RPG if that makes sense. I mean, when I think of FPS games with RPG elements I think of games like Deus Ex, or Bioshock. Their design philosophy is decidedly different than a game that is primarily an RPG with Shooter elements for combat/ navigation.

i have never played fallout 1 or 2 so i cant compare but i find that radiation is not a problem at all, i have a 100 medicine skill on 2 characters and 1 rad away takes away 150 ish radiation. its hard to survive at first but when you get to 20 nothing can stop you, i keep the difficulty at hard and its not hard to survive.

I think Bethseda did a wayyy better job on the fallout perspective than interplay did. Why? Because the potential for all future fallouts from here on out are alot higher than the turn based style interplay held on to. I think turn based combat systems aren't exceedingly dynamic or adaptable

As a first run, I honestly believe FO3 has shown us the potential, now its just a matter of execution of a grander scheme

I think Interplay did an amazing job with the engine they used, and for 1997 it was pretty special. It has also proven itself to be timeless, which is a testament to its gameplay. The future of Fallout looks pretty bleak from what FO3 brough to the table. As far as generic post-nuclear FPS/RPG hybrids go, it's the best thing going. But it has a long way to go before it can be considered timeless in its gameplay and plotline. A route I feel Bethesda will never take it down.

It's a deflating realisation. I honestly believe this is a missed opportunity by Bethesda to bring the franchise into modern day.

That's your ignorant opinion. RPGs are inherently turn based. Deal with it.

Soo.... that's quite a hefty declaration to make without any backing proof.

I prefer turn-based games, but I don't see how it's an inherent attribute to RPGs. Frak, I've played tabletop RPGs that didn't progress in turns (it was sort of an avante-garde type of game, but still...)

And you saw precisely NONE of that. It was like one town (or other location) bordered directly on the edge of the next, in some ways.

Whereas, in FO3 ... I have to admit, those few wrecked houses at the base of the hill, right when you first emerge from teh vault. That, right there, clinched the "post-nuclear" bit for me.


In FO3, being attacked by a trio of supermutants armed with better than Nail Boards is tantamount to experiencing death - even in fully-repaired Power Armor.

In FO1 or FO2, once I had the .223 FMJ, or god help them the Red Ryder LE, and Power Armor? TEN supermutants wasn't a threat - other than "gee, I hope I can actually CARRY all this loot!"


In FO1, there's only one place Radiation really even exists - the Glow. In FO2, ditto - the nuke plant. In FO3, it's everywhere. Including the food!

In both FO1 and FO2, Rad-X is total protection - you're either immune to rads, or you're dead. In FO3, no matter what you wear, withor without Rad-X ... spend enough time soaking rads, and you WILL get sick, or even die.

Well, arguably to saw a bit of it Though they were preset staging areas for random encounters FO3 didn't make alot of sense with it's wasteland, it's meant to be 200 years post war, you'd think that wasteland had only been there for a few decades.

I'll have to disagree with you in polar proportions on the mutants in FO3. Three supermutants with Nailboards isn't going to end you if you're wearing leather armour, let alone power armour, unless your research is based on standing still doing nothing whilst drinking a soda through your nose. Ten supermutants were plenty a threat in the originals, the only things you were safe from were the miniguns and flamers, provided they didn't score criticals, then you're going down in one hit, plasma and laser weapons still loved to rain the hurt in PA, and mutants liked to carry these in previous games. A D.C mutant armed to the teeth with a..hunting rifle, isn't going to scare anyone.

The glow was heavily radiated, but radiation still exsisted in the wasteland. And have you actually played the originals? To any extensive degree? Infact have you even played FO3?? Because you got radiated a great deal in FO2, before your character was even told gecko existed, let alone travelling there. And RadX means pretty much rad immunity in FO3 aswell, the difference being you accumulated hundreds in FO3 to the much lesser sums in the originals, pop two and you're well on your way to 85% resistance. RadX was just as much a win drug in FO3 aswell, and RadAway was even more of a joke, you've accumulated 100+ of these before you even hit your first radiation threshold. But all meds and chems are completely nerfed in FO3, someone said stimpacks you thought they meant revival potion.

I suggest you go back and play the originals and draw up some more accurate comparisons. You also might want to invest in some patches because your mechanics seem pretty bugged

Not to mention radaway was relatively rare in Fallout 1-2. In FO3 is everywhere.

I also have trouble understanding how Pax finds battling 10 supermutants armed with high-tech weaponry in FO 1-2 easy, but fighting three with nail boards hard in Fallout 3. If anything combat in Fallout 3 is much easier because you have full and free control of your character (meaning you can run, jump, duck, evade shots and circle strafe without having to worry about AP's) AND coupled with the fact enemies in Fallout 3 are nowhere near as well armed as those in previous games.

Fallout 3 - Enclave Patrol - One guy with a rocket launcher, one guy with a plasma rifle, one guy with a laser rifle.

Fallout 2 - Enclave Patrol - Two guys with pulse pistols (nearly the equivalent of alien blasters in FO3), two guys with gauss rifles, two guys with plasma rifles, one guy with gauss pistol, one guy with a ripper.

Fallout 3 - Mutant Patrol - One mutant with a nail board, one mutant with a minigun, one mutant with a hunting rifle.

Fallout 1 - Mutant Patrol - Two mutants with laser rifles, one mutant with a rocket launcher, one mutant with a minigun, one mutant with a flamethrower, two mutants with plasma rifles.

I mean, seriously, need I say more? Add that to the criticals which are nearly non-existent in Fallout 3 (applied to you) and there is no comparison between difficulty. The fact sometimes a mutant with a nailboard can actually inflict damage to you in Fallout 3 just goes to show how flawed the game mechanics are.

I think the common argument is that once you get certain weapons, Power Armor, and are able to land successive criticals with 95% accuracy in the originals, the game becomes easy.

Fair enough. But I maintain that you had to go through the whole game to get to that point. Picking perks and stats carefully. Completing the right quests to get the best armor and equipment. Or at least know enough about the game to take shortcuts.

Being strong was the reward for playing well. Whereas in FO3, being strong is a safety measure so that people don't mess up their game if they didn't develop their character right. Heck, just compare the frequency and earliness of headshots and criticals in FO3 and the originals during a single playthrough.

So I really don't get how people can say that FO3 is harder.

NEver rains or snows in the Capital Wasteland, now, dows it? In the absence of much weather, things would remain pretty untouched. Espcially in such an arid, parched environment as the Capital Wasteland appears to be.


Point of fact: I did specify that in FO3, Supermutants are dangerous if armed with BETTER than Nailboards. Perhaps my wording wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be, but that is my intent. Give 'em even just hunting rifles, and you're going to need healing when you're done killing them. Give them BIG weapons, like miniguns or missile launchers, and you're going to need healing when you're done running the frak away ...!

In FO1 and FO2? Again, once I had power armor and either the .223 FMJ or the Red Ryder LE, I only worried about critical hits, and even then, only if I got hit by more than one between my own turns. Ten Super-Mutants with plasma rifles? Meh, get 'em lined up a bit to reduce incoming fire, and start laying them down one by one. "Go for the eyes, Boo!"

FO3? Somehow running into ten supermutants at once? Heck, at that point even if they DID have only nail boards, time to prove that Discretion is the better part of Valor ...!


Negligible amounts of it. The only place in FO1 where you have to worry about rads, is the Glow. Everywhere else, eh, keep an eye on your rad-count and pop some Rad-Away when it hits triple digits.


Yes, I've played all three. Extensively. And, again: prior to Gecko, in FO2, radiation wasn't really anything to worry about. Most of it you could avoid by not stepping in puddles of obviously-glowing green goo - or having rubber boots in your inventory, if you HAD to walk through it.


Say that in an area you're svcking 5/sec from. 80% resistance of 5/sec is still 1/sec - in three and a half minutes, from 0 rads, you've got Radiation sickness. And I've found places where, sans Rad-X, I was seeing 8/sec and 9/sec. Plus, there's that whole zone where you end up taking (unprotected) some 600/sec (the reason you have to go through Little Lamplight, remember? I stumbled across it by accident once. Died within four steps, even at a dead run. WITH Rad-X and a radiation suit, I think I made it a fifth step.

In FO1 and FO2, ifyou took Rad-X, you were immune to radiation in any quantity, not just "highly resistant".


Basically, what you've said here is: "I disagree with you, Pax, so you must obviously be a moron with no experience, just talking out your [censored]."

Nice.

Do that again, and I'll get to test out this forum's /ignore-list feature. <_<

(Forum won't let me edit this into my prior post, argh.)


*sigh* I said better than nail-boards. *sigh*


And no matter what you're wearing, that missile launcher CAN seriously frak you up - cripple a limb or your head, for example.


And in Power Armor, or worse Advanced Power Armor, the odds of evenneeding to use a stimpack on any given turn of combat are ... oh, maybe 50/50, once you manage to down some Psycho (replaced with Med-X in FO3).


Depends on when in the game you run into them. I've run into patrols that are "One with a missile launcher, one with a flamer or minigun, and two with assault rifles - all with a grenade or two, as well".


And again, in Power Armor, really only bad luck will put you in serious danger. Expect to use some stimpacks during the fight (I'd expect, 2 stims per 3 mutants), then a first-aid kit after the fight.

OK, I think I may have misinterpreted what you wrote. But still, its not like hunting rifles are seriously going to put the hurt on you.



Indeed, and then you can go about patching it by going in VATS (which is in essence pausing the game), and simply using a stimpack. Easy peasy. Fallout 1-2 didn't even let you use non-combat skills in combat, so if you got a crippled limb you were well and truly [censored].



I think its fair to say in any fight you would have to use stimpacks, but that doesn't really say much about the difficulty of the opponents you are fighting. Sometimes a lucky bandit will land you a critical through your power armour and maybe knock you down. In Fallout 3 I don't think I've ever even noticed enemies landing criticals on you.



The only one there who really poses a threat is the one with the rocket launcher.


Still probably more than you will ever use after a single fight in Fallout 3.



Im sorry, but its not really that easy. You will be able to give at maximum 3 aimed shots in your turn, and then even if you killed 3 mutants with criticals, there are still 7 with plasma rifles left which will inflict probably well over 100 HP's of damage on you. Thats excluding the fact one will probably get lucky and score a critical on you, either killing you instantly or addinf further damage to that score.

Oh, and having them lined up does not reduce incoming fire. Unless you are in the base, then yes. And its precisely BECAUSE THEY INFLICT A LOT OF DAMAGE that any player worth their salt will know better than to engage them head on.



I seriously don't understand how you can say with a straight face the combat in Fallout 1-2 is easy, but tell me you run from mutants in Fallout 3. You are either a very bad player (which I doubt since you find combat in Fallout 1-2 'easy') or you are lying.

Sorry double post.

Yep, that's true according the http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Rad-X. Taking two Rad-X in Fallout 1 and 2 would give you 100% immunity while the effects lasted - in Fallout 3 the effect depended on your Medicine skill and repeated doses wouldn't grant you 100%.

I have noticed, at least for myself, that radiation was more of a consideration in F3 than in the earlier games, where it was really only a consideration in certain specific areas, usually with plenty of warning beforehand. Anti-radiation drugs, I found, to be pretty common in pretty much all 3 games. I've never run out of Rad-Away in Fallout 3, but I found myself using it much more often in that game than in the other ones. Maybe other people had different experiences, but that was mine.

I kind of feel the same way about difficulty. In all 3 I'd run into some trouble staying alive early on in the game, maybe have to reload once or twice later on in the game, and was pretty much invincible towards the end. I found the originals a bit more unforgiving, but for myself it's more due to the turn-based combat. With Fallout 3 being real-time, I just hot-key my Stimpaks and keep one finger over it when I'm in a tough fight. I haven't really found Supermutants or any of the encounters any more difficult or easy in any of the games than another.

And 75% damage resistance from gulping those two doses of Psycho says "100hp? You mean 25hp. Of my 250 to 300hp total. So yeah, you managed to get my attention - svcks to be you."

Chems don't stack up in FO3 the way they did in FO1 and FO2 - and armor isn't as protective, either.


O_o Lining them up does reduce incoming fire - because the ones in the back have a distressing (to them, gleeful to ME) tendency to shoot the front-of-the-line guys in the back, rather than shooting me. Nothing is more fun than seeing that missile-launcher SuperMutie in the back try to get a shot through a crowd of 4-6 of his friends, and having it hit one of them, and knock 'em all on their kiesters. Second place goes to "Mister Minigun-in-the-back", who could cause multiple of his friends to turn into Chunky Salsa in short order.


Or you continue to misunderstand, somehow ...? Maybe you only played with Big Guns? That might make ten FO3 supermutants more bearable. And might've been inaccurate / inefficient enough in FO1-2 to make them more threatening there.

But with that .223FMJ or the Red Ryder (and Finesse, and a high Luck, and Better Criticals) ... three aimed shots was three dead enemies, unless I got VERY unlucky. And of course, limited kiting - two aimed shots and a few steps away - to keep them lined up, always useful. Plus, it left AP with which to access my inventory, and use a stimpack or three, if needed.

The Master's not-really-a-vault in FO1, do you remember that? Remember how you could turn AWAY from the Master's room, and go through the locker-room to the fusion powersupply in the basemant? The locker room filled with eight or ten heavily-armed supermutants?

Yeah. That room.

Me, my Red Ryder LE, and a whole lot of greasy meat chunks. *shrug* That's all that was in there, about five minutes' real-time after I stepped around that corner. In FO3? I wouldn't want to even TRY a room like that. Not for all the Tea in China!

It never rains or snows because there was no nuclear winter in Fallout's world. After 200+ years civilisation would have made the biggest impact on the wasteland, but everything is far too preserved, pre-packaged food still exsists in great abundance, every single item no matter how essential, exsists in great abundance, the Capital wasteland is untapped, 200 years after the great war. It doesn't make any sense. The thriving Hub in FO1 was founded just 16 years after the bombs fell. Everyone in D.C has M.E, it seems.

Even a super sledge, even a hunting rifle, they're still not going to put you down. You're basing your experiences in FO1 and FO2 as wearing Power Armour, so I'd assume we're talking about being clad in Power Armour in FO3 aswell. Mutants have nothing that can hurt you to any deadly degree by that stage in FO3. You will still get put down very quickly in previous games if you encountered 10 super mutants with plasma rifles, whilst that wont happen, that seems to be an example you're rather fond of. Fact is even if only 2 of them had plasma rifles, those rifles are going to hurt, alot. Plasma has great potential unless you're wearing Adv.PAMKII. Maybe you're playing on an easy combat setting, I don't know, but if all the vets took a vote as to the outcome of 10 mutants with plasma rifles being clad in PA on the originals, you'd get a very clear perspective of what the overwhelming outcome would be. Forget 10 FO3 mutants with nailboards, even with supersledges they wouldn't be a danger with PA, they all wouldn't be able to attack you at once that's for sure, and may I mention that a simple sidestep in FO3 renders any melee mutant completely useless, but this technicality aside, you could put them down with little hassle, they might have been pretty deadly with plasma rifles, but I've never seen a D.C mutant with any kindof energy weapon, despite the fact that they war on the BoS constantly. They prefer their trusty hunting rifles. The great thing is, I could console it all in right now and test it out, which is a tempting thought.

I still disagree with your argument on radiation in the originals, I have first hand experience of becoming irradiated very quickly in FO2 just travelling the wasteland, I'm not even talking about green goo. You'll find your advice works more than miracles when applied to FO3, it's never been easier to keep an eye on your rad count, and it's never been easier to pop as many RadAway as you like to deal with the poisoning. In three minutes I'll become irradiated, the game will make it perfectly clear how many rads I'm taking and when exactly I'll benefit from the hundreds of chems I have at my disposal, why wait until I hit 200 rads? I may aswell be wasteful, these RadAway aren't going to use themselves. And that zone in 87 is a gimick, you can get through it, many of us have, the door is still inaccessible when you reach it, the ridiculous thing is you can actually make that run because you have a hospital's worth of anti-rad chems stuffed in your pocket. It's all an illusion really, you're just as immune to radiation in FO3 as in the originals, if not more, think about it.

I also agree with pretty much everything Geronimo57 said, and will duly second his content in my debate.

Ignore all you like, I said nothing of the sort.

So Fallout 1 was too easy because you picked the best perks, built your character right, and used a cheat weapon (Red Ryder)?

Ever been to the D.C. area? It rains reasonably often there. It snows every so often, too. Not a lot ... an inch or two, except in rare cases. But still ... preipitation. D.C. isn't i a desert IRL.


We know that Rivet City's founding came within a single human lifetime. The brotherhood are recent arrivals, too. And while Alistair Tenpenny is an old man, Tenpenny Tower is still not older than HE is.

IOW: the Capital Wasteland hasn't been occupied continuously, not by that many people, for all 200 years. Andale, maybe. A few other periphery not-quite-settlement areas (BigTown, for example, and Lamplight certainly).


Hardened Power Armor has Threshold 13 and Resistance 60% versus Plasma fire. Drop one Psycho while wearing that, and the +50% damage resistance pretty much makes you the next thing to Superman: functionally invulnerable. (IIRC, damage resistance caps at 90% in FO1 and FO2.)

Alternately, that same armor, and three ranks of Toughness (or two ranks, and Phoenix Assault Enhancement) ... no need for Chems, then, either of thsoe will give you 90% Plasma resistance.

The standard P94 Plasma Rifle has a base damage rating of 30-65. Minus 13 for the armor's Threshold, and we get 17-52. 10% of that is 1.7 to 5.2; assuming the damage always rounded up, that's 2-6 per shot. Before criticals, yes, but remember I've acknowledged that getting critically hit was the primary source of threat.


That is extraordinarily bad luck for you, then. Did you dump-stat yoru charactr's Luck attribute ...??


You questioned whether or not I'd played any of the games, all THREE of them, and in a rather condescending tone. *shrug*




I never said F1 was too easy. Not once.

The key IMO is this: in F3, even with "the best perks", you just won't be as resistant to damage as you would with the equivalents in F1 or F2. Plus, those're perks I almost always took, because it suited my playstyle (Finesse and Better Criticals, anyway).

As for the Red Ryder being a "cheat" weapon - I did not ever cheat to get it. I was always perfectly happy "settling for" the .223 Pistol if the Red Ryder didn't show up. But if it DID show up, well yes, it's the more effective gun - why not use it?

Or do you consider any of F3's Uniques to be "cheat weapons", too?

Now you're bringing chem use into it. All the chems are win drugs in FO3, they might not stack but they're alot less addictive so you can buff all you like, and your comment on armour is misinformed at best. How can armour be more or less protective when FO3 uses a completely different system. 55% damage resistance in FO3 is 55% damage resistance to any and all types of damage. Power Armour in previous games still has a susceptible weakness to Plasma based attacks, and Normal protection wasn't anything godly either, a minigun critical would still end you. Lining up is just an A.I deficiency you are taking advantage of, super mutants wouldn't physically do that, you say lining is a great way to kill hoards of muties in FO1/2 then I say strafing renders any FO3 melee mutant completely harmless.

I've never Big Gunned, that's never been my thing, I've always small gunned my games, FO3 mutants are more bearable period, even at low levels. And how are you taking three aimed shots? Aimed shots take 6AP even with 10 Agility you're making 1 aimed shot a round, even with BonusROF perk you'd still need 15AP to make 3 aimed shots and that would require 5 levels of the action boy perk in which you can only gain 1 level, which means you can't make three aimed shots, and it would be dedication enough to make two, without having any extra AP for your 'lining' trick. You're just a lier.

You can also only reach an HP threshold of 204 in FO1, provided you tailored your endurance to 10 from the start and reached strength 10 sometime later, and took all three Lifegiver perks from level 12. 250 - 300 HP was very a ambitious example. In FO2 you could gain a threshold of 348 by level 21 but this requires the same dedication as the above example, the greater benefit comes from the way Lifegiver works in FO2. You can start FO3 with 300hp, most of the values in FO3 are pretty meaningless.

Let's just not have this argument. I know what I know based on playing the games in question. Most of what you're saying just doesn't add up.

No I don't. Just wanted to clarify, because the same can be said about FO3's uniques as well.

Can't agree about the perks and damage resistance though. But I guess there's no convincing any of us otherwise.

Not true at all...

I don't recall Boulders gate being turned based, I also don't recall the successful WoW being turned based, and all the other countless RPGs that aren't turned based. I know someone mentioned Bloodlines, and that game is AWESOME. Its also not turned based.

Bethseda, in my humble opinion, used FO3 as a test run. this is their first run of a game.

you think they don't read these forums? I mean honestly, interplay would have done what better? We won't know because they were too busy ruining their entire company to make this game!

Did Bethesda's A team design and implement this game?

Probably not.

I imagine most of the work was done by Team B, which is to say, they're not going to devote their highest talented to a game that hasn't sold yet. This is a business, you guys do remember that right?

I imagine, since FO3 did sell incredibly well, that Team A will make a much better game, than Team B did.