I wish people would take heart with this test run argument.

Hmmmm?

I just hope FO4 has more of a gameplay/RPG focus than FO3. I'm not saying it didn't have one, I just think it could be alot better. I may not be very fond of Bethesda, but I'm willing to see if they are truly capable of taking consumer opinion into consideration. Fans of previous Beth games say they are, but I'm still indifferent. I'll be putting FO4 under great scrutiny, at the very least.

You may get more of what you like, but the days of FO1 are probably over.

Me? I'll preorder FO4 now, if I could, just as I would preorder TES 5

Doesn't that leave you feeling you got ripped off then ? If it's a test run after all. I'm not exactly filled with optimism about them learning from this though, as they seem to ignore the elephants in the room. I doubt they read these forums as well.

I cited you the exact numbers for Hardened Power Armor on Plasma. Threshold 13 (which means, the first 13 damage simply don't happen - a 10-point hit would become 0 damage), AND, 60% resistance to whatever goes above that. So as I said, a standard Plasma Rifle blast becomes a 2-6hp damage hit.


Not with all guns, it doesn't take 6AP. There are several guns that take only 5AP to fire an aimed shot (and 4AP for an unaimed single shot). Examples include the Red Ryder LE BB gun, the Turbo Plasma Rifle, and the 9mm Mauser pistol.

With Bonus Rate of Fire (perk), now it's only 4AP (5AP for standard guns). Then, two of Action Boy (perk, up to 3 levels allowed in FO1, or 2 ranks in FO2), and you have 12AP.

12 divided by 4 is 3. With the right gun and right perks, wow ... 3 aimed shots in a single round. Whod've thunk?


Or ... perhaps now i should ask if you've ever actually played any of the Fallout games? See above. Check the Wiki entry for http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Action_Boy if you like.

As for lining things up? That's why I commented on not taking the third shot - leaving four AP. Possibly up to 4 more, if one wanted to invest Perks into Bonus Move (+2 AP only for movement, per level; up to 2 levels). I don't really recommend that, though. If it were 4AP for movement for a single level, that might be different ... but as it stands, and with the number of perks already allocated to firing ranged weapons ... just not worth it, IMO.


Your experience seems to be faulty.

Or maybe this is where I should rudely accuse you of being a liar ...?

(Hardened Power Armour) DT 13 / DR 50% vs (Plasma Rifle) 30 - 60 damage translates into 9 - 24 damage vs a non-critical plasma attack, that's alot considering you're sporting the best armour in the game, and alot more than your forecast 2 - 6. A critical will still end you.

I must admit I was sourcing the wrong information, I was looking at the action boy rank limit from FO3. That was a mistake.

Even so, an aimed shot with a .223 Pistol with the appropriate perks still amounts to 15AP which is what almost all weapons amount to, not including custom weapons like the TurboPR (Only -1AP in FO1) and the Red Ryder LE. But yes you would be able to make three aimed shots with a Red Ryder LE and all the appropriate perks. That's alot of tailoring though, and it takes your entire perk build from level 6, if you're talking about a character completely accustomed to that end it becomes plausible, but that relies on a one-track specialised build. Which is fine, it's just not flexible to any other end.

It's just power building. Your example works for one very specific and demanding build, and if that's how you play all your games there's nothing wrong with that. But it relies on that one system. It works to prove a point, but in execution it's player specific.

You might not be a liar, for this I apologise. But you seem to be making alot of mismatched claims. I notice you only sniped my action boy blunder.

Wasn't directed at me, but I figured I'd add my own two caps on this.

For myself, I think most games are sort of works in progress. Fable 1 and 2, for example, sort of represent steps on the way towards a really mind-blowing Fable "X" that I might someday be lucky enough to experience at some point. Unfortunately, you can't just spend 20-odd years working on one video game with a team of competent artists and programmers; only releasing the finished version once it's absolutely as good as it can possibly get. At some point you have to put out a game - your financial backers (who are paying the salaries for all these people) are going to want a return on their investment. There's always going to be a balancing act between how much money you can spend in development costs versus how many copies you can expect to sell.

So you work on a game for a couple of years and get that game as polished as you can, and try to learn from the feedback and massive playtesting a release represents; and funnel that learning experience back into the next iteration of the game. That's why sequels are so popular in videogames - there's always a large margin in any game of features and elements you really wanted in the game, but had to cut back on for any number of reasons.

To say Fallout 3 is a test run or learning experience is not to say they just put a bunch of stuff together to see how it worked, at least in my opinion. It's just the first step towards an ultimate goal that everyone is working towards. I kind of take the view of videogames as art (at least potentially.) And there's an old saying that a work of art is never finished so much as abandoned. As a bit of a starving artist myself - I never really finish a picture so much get frustrated with it - it never turns out like you think it's going to, and you're always going to think you could have done better. If you were to wait for any designer or artist to be satisfied with something before they released it to the public, nothing would ever get done.

Fallout 3 basically represents the best the team could do in the amount of time they had to work on it. With Fallout 4 they can pick up where they left off and continue improving things. You can either buy Fallout 3 or not, love it or hate it.

As far as Dev involvement in these forums - I have noticed there are other studios where their Devs play a more active role in their official forums. Bioware's forums are set up to show which threads have Dev responses and allow you to jump directly to them, and I've noticed they seem to post somewhat more regularly than around here. Spore's official forum, however, seems to be completely devoid of any Dev interest at all.

I think it seems safe to assume that they at least pop in on occasion to get a sense of what's going on. On the other hand, a Dev posting on a forum doesn't seem to me any different than William Shatner responding to a bunch of obsessive Trekkie questions at a panel discussion. We are basically the video-game equivalent of Sci-Fi nerds, after all. Asking a Dev about their motives behind various choices they made or why they did certain things isn't really any different than some nerd asking about the structure of Dilithium Crystals or how the teleporters work.

Well, I just hope that is indeed the case. Though it seems if devs are going to go on feedback, FO4 will be even closer to a Fallivion than FO3, I've seen too many people asking for guilds and such. And though I myself have never played Oblivion, I know exactly what these people are refering to.

As for your last comparison, I'd say that was more akin to Chris Avellone and the Fallout Bible

No, because its a great game, all things considered. Unfortunately, the reality of todays economy is that its incredibly risky to take your best resources and devote it to a game that you don't quite know it will be profitable. Then you can mold it from better clay to a better finished product.

For better or worse, I think "Fallivion" is sort of the way things will go from here on with the main series.

What are the two things we know they've implemented in response to player feedback? The higher level cap and the ability to play beyond the main quest. And I'll give you three guesses at which fanbase was generating those complaints. (Hint, it's the Elder Scrolls fans...)

At best what we're going to see is a game that makes some compromises between the Elder Scroll fans and the Fallout fans (and not to say the two are mutually exclusive, of course.)

Heh, still would leave me with the impression that they had no real clear idea of what they're doing if you take the "trial run" thing as true. I don't think this was really a trial run, nor do I agree with the implicit advice to cut them slack for it. Also this game was developed under a far better economic situation than we have right now, so not really sure how that's relevant.

From what I've studied about the 'video game' sector of our lovely economy, is that much of its success lay in 2 things

Constantly innovative products and

The same business model no matter the climate.

Even tho right now the economy is in the toilet, the model is the same model they already employed.

This would explain the 10.1% profit for the sector from January to February. In some respects, Video Games are a bit like movies. You have a dozen new awesome ones, and their clones......

sometimes, anyway.

I could go into more detail if you like.

9-24. Really, now.

Max noncritical damage for a normal plasma rifle is 65.

Minus 13, is 52.

Minus 90% - 60% resistance from the armor, and 30% resistance from the wearer (through perks or chems, take your pick) - is 5.2 damage, at the upper end.

5.2 is a long way short of 24.

Even though this discussion is way over my head with my limited knowledge of english, I'd just like to add that people are, in my opinion, measuring the things a bit wrong about the whole "killing things is easier in FO1/2/3" talk.

We're talking about a specific character build in Fallout 1/2 that eventually becomes incredibly powerful, due to starting out with the right SPECIAL, choosing the right perks along the way and, let's say you go your way normally (not going after Advanced PA before even getting near San Fran), getting the right equipment for the job. But there are a lot of other ways of playing FO1/2, which would make straightforward combat against, let's say, that room full of Mutants in the Masters' vault, at least a lot harder, I'd even call it digital suicide for the non-combat focused character. Just to compare, I feel I can kill pretty much anything in FO3, no matter what kind of character I create. One thing is for sure: no matter what kind of character build, he's probably going to die if he's up against 4 Super mutants with their typical weapons in FO1/2 while wearing, let's say, metal armor, but in FO3 I'm certain that I could make it through a confrontation with 4 Super mutants using Hunting Rifles, Miniguns, melee weapons or whatever you fancy, while wearing, let's say, leather armor.

But if you guys are just here to point out these things about endgame gameplay while playing a highly combat-oriented character, well...isn't it obvious? Both are too powerful and can only be killed by criticals, bad luck, exploding cars or whatever you want to call it.

This is pretty much the point I'm trying to make I just find it a semi-duty to dispel false claims is all. I wasn't trying to point out the end game, though that's what it evolved into for the sake of hypothesis. It is annoying when people take it that far just prove a point, but what can I say, I'm a svcker for biting

And your 'understanding of English' is perfect

Good points. Also, it should be remembered that games have long development times. A game started today, in this economy will (hopefully) hit the market several years from now, in better economic conditions.

All nice, still not seeing what bearing it has on the economic situation today affecting whether or not Fallout 3 was a result of "playing it safe". I do have to laugh at the "constantly innovative products" bit though.

You must be joking. FO2 and 1 are great games, but they get easy by level 10. Hell, I can take out Super Mutant patrols in about 30 seconds in FO1 on my level 11 character. Also, the reason that I like FO3 is that unlike the originals, you can see the landmarks, and tell that you are in a place that used to have living breathing people in them, places you've seen in real life. Meanwhile, if you go to San Francisco or LA in the originals, they bear no semblance at all to the real world. Fallout 3 is far more desolate, and even depressing.

I must be doing something wrong in FO and FO2 as I tend to get killed by SM or Enclave patrols, ah well. One thing about San Francisco or LA is that you're not in the whole city, just a part of it. So that's why you wouldn't see the landmarks as much as you would in Fallout 3. Fallout 3's not really depressing compared to the earlier games, and certainly not far moreso, unless you're easily depressed, I guess. It's about as desolate as well, although that's easy to do - just show lots of rubble and ruin, heh.

Yeh, well I just started playing and can't even get past the first rat.

Whilst that may be your experience, it doesn't prove anything to the contrary in FO3. Opposition is pretty mediocre in FO3. Thing is you say that the originals become easy by level 10, which is easily plausible if you've tailored your Endurance for some nice HP leveling, focusing on combat based skills such as small guns. Thing is in FO3 you can walk out into the wasteland fresh from the Vault with 300hp, and more than likely level up right there and then for some immediate combat skill buffing and a perk. Goto springvale school and fill up on ammo and weapons, sell what you don't need to Moira and bam. You're set for the early game. It only gets easier from then on.

In the originals you still needed to level up a fair deal and find yourself some decent armour before it was wise to take on Mutants with mini guns and laser/plasma rifles.

Ever tried to go to Old Olney or Yao Guai tunnels fresh out of the Vault?

That's the same as going to the Boneyard at level 10 in FO1 and trying your hand at pest control. I urge you to try it.

I think that everything you say about FO3 here also applies to FO1/2. Optimal combat builds in either game dramatically dummies down the combat. Roleplay builds in either game can be dramatically challenging.

Combat in roleplaying games need to be balanced for noncombat builds, and the byproduct of that is easy combat for combat builds. There are difficulty sliders and mods available, but none of these games were designed for combat.

To me, combat has always been secondary to teh rest of the game, in all three of the Fallouts. I'm more interested in exploring and less interested substantial combat challenges. I look to other games for that sort of thing.

My point was that it still required a degree of leveling in the originals. Everything you need in the FO3 early game is there for you to take advantage of before you go anywhere else. It doesn't matter how big your gun and armour is in FO1/2 you'll be struggling with raiders at Level 1, Power Armour or not, let alone a small contingent of mutants.