So from what I've heard there's a lot of uproar about how Fallou 3 and New Vegas have more first person shooter features than RPG. Personally I really like the look and feel of both NV and FO3, I also like the RPG elements, BUT, I also think that these games are more geared toward run and gun, than RPG.

So this is the thread where suggestions for bridging the gap between FPS and RPG so that both parties are happy.

I'll get us started: I think they should impliment a cover system to future games. this is mostly becuase of Rainbow 6 Vegas, which relies heavily on the cover system. I think this gives the play more time to think, and consider their options. Obviously this would not work against things like Radscorpions and Deathclaws, but against gun toating Raiders and other bad guys, it would, IMO, make it more RPG and less run and gun.

So implementing cover-hopping from FPS's will make it less FPS and more RPG? No thanks, I'd rather your chance to do a percentage of damage, not damage done, should depend on skill.

Fallout New Vegas did a good job at closing the gap between the two. It brought back the reputation system. You are still free to run and gun but it will drastically effect your reputation with factions as well as quest outcomes.

New Vegas also bought back diplomacy to Fallout. We can talk our way out of killing for pretty much every situation. We can join or at least deal with pretty much every faction in the game.

New Vegas also brought back enemies greater then your ability to kill. This gets people to specialise their characters and think of other ways around a problem other then "kill them all and let god sort them out."

So just keep going with the how New Vegas did things. For future game borrow more from how characters, level and use skill points.

Wait what?!

But this would not work with the TERRIBLE AI that is in the game. Its not like RDR or GTA 4 where the AI actually use tactics. I think it would be a pretty decent thing to add.

I agree that chance to do damage (based on a percentage) is a definite improvement,

but I aslo think the cover system would make the game less run and gun. Yes it comes from first person shoot games, but the reason for implementing them is to prevent the gamer from just running into a place and shooting the crap out of everything. If you know that you need to get to cover, and that your outnumbered and could get flanked, you're going to opt for an alternative, even if that means coming back later and sneaking into town.

@Ace Hanlon: Agreed, the AI would need to be changed, but overall AI improvement comes from development that usually spans several games.

fo3 did good, fo nv improved on the fps part and rpg part. The A.I. needs help, they are horrible. I don t need any help what so ever.

The hostile NPCs in fo nv need to use cover. Fo3 Enclave set up cover, and used it alot of the time. Fo nv has very little cover for hostile NPCs to use.

Plus, Fo3 the hostiles were either ranged or melee. Once you fire at Enclave they returned fire immediately. Fo nv has most NPCs with ranged and melee weapons, which all too often results in a hostile pulling a knife and pacing around for some reason.

They corrected this in HH, where it went back to melee or ranged only hostiles. They did not seem nearly as stupid in HH. Vet rangers are also ranged only, and they never seem stupid.

Its all about the AI, and the stats they give the hostiles.

Im happy with pretty much everything except they don t return fire in fo nv if they have ranged and melee weapons. The AI is too dumb to know to just shoot in the direction they just got shot from.

I thought it was an action-rpg kind of style that just happened to be in first person :confused: