You told me I didn't understand something which I clearly did, I don't think many people would take too kindly to that. I also didn't say I was more intelligent than you, I said I only accept patronism from someone more intelligent whereas I don't know you so I have no choice but to consider you my equal. I didn't mention Call of Duty, you did :huh:


Is this about my comment of sight vs. site or his comment regarding "fing"? The reason I pointed that out was because he used sight and site in the same paragraph, there's no harm meant.

You've pointed out every grammatical error ive made. and no because you kept referncing that i wanted a cod game, without rpg values, which was NOT what i meant, so i tried to explain it in a different way, which is when u took a fit on me.

edit: and i think he was talking to both of us.

Holding your breath is again a Player Action...you are not the one shooting...you tell you character where to aim and he will shoot...if he has a high Small Guns Skill, he will be a better shot and he might even hold his breath for better aim...and all this is symbolized by less jitter while you're aiming.

even with 100 small guns skill the sniping was still moving around everywhere. so that is irrelevant. sure the sway was less, but there was still too much. also yeah, im pretty sure i do shoot, i pull rt and it tells him to shoot, i move the L stick and i tell him where to walk, god forbid i tell him to hold his breathe while taking a sniper shot right?

I've pointed out one, and the reason I pointed it out was because you used both site and sight possibly without knowing which was correct so I just mentioned it, I meant no offence and if I offended you I'm sorry, but I have not been pointing out "every grammatical error", I was being helpful and it only happened once.
I never said you wanted a CoD game, if you look at what I said, I was telling you how certain features wouldn't fit into an RPG. Look at the thing about breathing, I could have immediately gave you a "no this isn't CoD" comment but I actually gave you a constructive reason as to why it wouldn't fit into the game.
And yeah he probably was, fair enough.

well then how could they fix sniping? even at 10 small guns, my 5 yr old newphew could hold that thing steadier. its a little off the walls.

and at 100, I can still hold it steadier that guy and I've only shot one gun in my life, i understand recoil when shooting, but when this guy might as well be eating a sandwich with one hand and sniping with the other, there must be sum "rpg freindly" way to fix this over dramatic idk how to use a gun but i can shoot a minigun and kill him before you can hit him with one sniper shot mechanic they have going on. (also assuming both small guns and big guns are the same level, but you catch my drift b4 i get RPG flamed.)

edit: i honestly think the bows and arrows in oblivion were more accurate than the sniper rifle in fo3.

reedit: The bow and arrows at 10 marksman were more accurate than this sniper at 100 sm guns. just cuz its an rpg doesnt mean my guy has to have adhd and cant stop moving for 2 seconds to shoot a guy. especially when its guns in it.

The original games had realistic wounds. The unique (and still viscerally satisfying) death animations were one of the most talked about aspects of the games when they first came out. Fallout 'camp' has classically been associated more with the setting than the combat. FO3 should have made more effort to make cool, unique, and realistic wounds, but went for the exploration as the key feature instead. While I miss the death animations, I'll take the hours and hours of exploration any day of the week. I do still cringe with mild embarrasment at the 'popped off' limbs and heads in FO3, but don't see this changing until a new engine is used for development.

I just checked with 100 small guns, there was no sway with a zoomed in sniper rifle.*


I haven't been flaming you if thats what you're saying. And yes I would agree that it is like that at lower levels, but even if 100 small guns didn't completely remove sway (and it does) the fact would remain that it still removes some, so adding the hold breath feature would make the lesser spread of high small guns characters completely pointless.


I'll take your word for it, I've never played Oblivion so I don't know.

*Now that I think about it, it's more unrealistic that there is no sway at all so your real life examples don't really apply :laugh:

No sway? my 360 def sways? It doesnt sway as much but my guy moves a little and misses randomly when i shoot. or is my game just screwy? I had a topic b4 about a glitch i experienced a lot that apparently only i had so maybe its just my disc/xbox and my argument is invalid for my stuff is not working right. so maybe im wrong.

i went to test my 100 sm guns sniper to better explain what i mean,

even tho i have a 100 small guns skill, i can put my scope on the guy, and yet my bullet stil sways off into the middle of nowhere completely missing the enemy. but i also have a problem with teleporting enemies, so it might just be my game/xbox so if its my equipment, i apologize.

edit: i'll be back on this thread later to see whats up, but ima go play cod for a bit. c ya.

Definately no sway, go and try it man.


It probably isn't to do with sway :laugh: there are alot of issues with this game.


I'm sure I don't need to point out the irony here.

Edit: Why did I keep saying spread instead of sway. Bah humbug.

Yeah, I think he mentioned something about that in an preview. Something about having no sway when you have high Strength and high Guns skill. Honestly I welcome the sway. Skills are more satisfying when you know more has changed than just damage. I think the sway only happened with scoped weapons, which was just kind of weird. Iron sights look kind of funny right now, but they're not going to stay that way. It kind of looks like Blacklight Tango Down. BTW that game is looking really good, and it's a XBOX Live/PSN download so it only costs around $15.

Well said.

Whata u guys actually want the blood to look like?

Blueberry jam.

Red.

It's weird reading views on what people think Fallout 3 was or should be. Seems there is the crowd who recognise and want more RPG, and there's the crowd who reconise and want capable FPS, but there's also a crowd, like me, who understand the appeal of Fallout 3 was that it had both. Neither done spectacularly well, but neither done too badly either. Every promotional video for Fallout 3 highlighted the fact that you could use real-time combat a la FPS games, or utilise VATS on a points system a la RPG. Every trailer for the DLCs are pretty much combat oriented showcases though.

None of these elements RPG/FPS should be at all stunted because some players think it should be played one way or the other. The previews for Fallout: New Vegas are pretty much 70% FPS views of a guy firing a weapon, this is a major aspect of the games popularity and appeal. Forget: "I don't think it should be played this way." The point is it can be played either way. Perfecting both elements and finding a balance is the objective me thinks. Howard said before FO3 was released his fear was people were going to buy the game only to "not get it." Like, "Is this a shooter or an RPG or what the hell is this thing?" It's both, and kinda neither, you can run and gun but without spending your points on the appropriate skills your running and gunning will svck the tail end of hairy Mutant. It's RPG but without decent weapons you're not really gonna get far. It seems like the most natural combination of elements in the world to me. RPG and FPS Lite, making a solid hybrid... or something. But as it evolves that combination will improve, regardless of whether fifty thousand people want heavier RPG, and fifty thousand want respectable FPS.

As for the gore, me thinks the choice to have it cartoon/comic book-like, with heads coming clean off and limbs splitting at thigh and bicep, and having blood splattering on your screen - is purely to retain some sense of fun. It's also easier on the rating, which despite being an advlt rating, doesn't need to abuse that position by having ultra-realistic gore and carnage onscreen. As for the crosshair and HUD elements, Fallout: New Vegas is the next in line to Fallout 3, which revolutionised the franchise and introduced a couple of million players to the universe... *removing* elements from Fallout 3, not *improving* elements of Fallout 3, will lose you a chunk of that crowd. Fallout 3 had a crosshair, Fallout: NV should have the option for one etc. I get opposing things like gore and crosshairs, things you didn't particularly like, but there will be a great many who did, so if you're gonna clamour for stuff... clamour for options... not outright changes. :nope:

Say what? That's what Iron Sights are for...AIMING. And technically since F3, It is a mix of Shooter and a RPG so they have to cater to both genres.

It really wouldn't be abuse, many games are much more gory. You're not a fan of censors are you? :huh: Genuine question.
And about the fun comic style, I honestly think it's unintentional considering the rest of the game shoves the "wasteland is bad and dangerous" down your throat throughout and major plot points involve your dad's suicide and attempted genocide.


They don't have to do anything. But I do agree it would make more business sense.

Not a fan of the censors, no, but I recognise that an American company making a huge title like Fallout 3 have to dance around them while rubbing their stomachs and patting their heads. I don't think Fallout 3 got any particularly bad press for what could be considered extreme violence, purely because when you shoot something chunks of meat and eyeballs come flying off it in an almost comic book fashion.


I'm pretty sure somebody must have noticed during development the eyeballs and chunks of brain matter and skull fountaining into the air when an enemy's head popped, and huge chunks of muscle and bone were strewn about quite freely. It's totally intentional. lol :huh:

Some people seem to seriously miss the point of this thread. And because i play other games besides fo3 all of a sudden there is irony? I'm also a fan of L4D2? is that a problem too? I am also eagerly awaiting Reach. It's funny when because you play one game the world goes upside down on you. Wanna hear something funny though? B4 u say im an epic shooter fan and i hate rpgs?

I thought ME2 was horrible. the story was great, but ME1 was way better in comparison, it had both rpg and 3rd person shooting pretty evened out, than ME2 came along and became Gears Effect 2.

It seems people are missing the point of my thread. allow me to sum it up.

1: I just want blood that looks legit. Im not asking for an over the top Saw Out: new vegas.

2: I want to aim down the iron sights instead of a crosshair when I am aiming. No other mechanics should be changed.

3: Even if the sniper rifle problem is generally my glitchy game problem, the fact that my guy looks like hes trying to find waldo in his sniper scope somewhere just because he doesnt have 100 sm guns skill should be fixed.

I'm mnot asking for cod. Im not asking for halo. Im not asking for a slasher fic. stop exaggerating my ideas to stupid proportions just because u assume cod runs my life.

I hear you. Or am reading you rather, I get it. ^_^ An option for that would be a good add.


That's been answered already. The iron sights seen in the snippets aren't a finished example of how they'll work in Vegas. It looks to me like the gun is moving centre, which would indicate it'll lift and the sight will be used. Unlike FO3 when the gun would move off to the shoulder and the camera would zoom, moving your crosshair closer to the target, and steadying your aim. If the iron sights are going to work as they should, then the crosshair will have to be removed, it becomes superfluous when iron sights are introduced. The crosshair should be there for firing from the hip and for third-person though obviously.


That's the point of the RPG elements though, if your character doesn't have the skills then you can't make him do what you want him to do, pick a lock, hack a computer, or sight a target with a steady aim, and guarantee a hit even if you sight perfectly and fire at the right time. It's the same as having an RPG character on screen in an epic fantasy, and watching him swing his giant axe, hearing a ker-chunk, and having the word "MISS" appear in feedback. :laugh:

So basically FO3=Morrowind Not Oblivon. Which i dnt like very much. i loved morrowind, but oblivions combat was better. in a shooting game, my guy doesnt need to spaz out with the snipe rifle for it to still be called an rpg.

Good because they're ridiculous. But you can't deny games get away with more.


I'm sure it was meant to be grisly and serious for the most part, it becomes an intentional joke with Bloody Mess.


It was a joke, relax man.


Nah this really does need to be kept in. If you want to be good at aiming firearms then you have to be experience with them, it's simple logic really. And it is never as bad as you describe anyway :huh:


:facepalm: Read above, and what I've said before about you and CoD. I haven't stupidly exaggerated anything thankyou very much squire.


Well put, this is completely the reason why you can't give everyone perfect aim etc. from the outset.


You're still missing the point.

#1 i wasnt only talking about u exaggerating what i asked for.
#2 It is REALLY BAD go get a sniper with anything lwess than 50 sm guns skills and hit a target thats actually sniper distance away. my 10mm pistol is mroe accurate. which is stupid. And renders your argument invalid. WHy sia pistol MORE accurate than a sniper? i can look at a far away guy. shoot him with a clip of my pistol and kill him. I can use my sniper. try to shoot him, and miss every shot. dnt believe me? go to OA with sumthing like 30 sm guns skill. get the pistol and sniper. and tell me whats more accurate. yea the pistol. so even from an rpg standpoint of better weapons are better, this makes no sence.

Sawyer said a different build of the iron sights system would be in the final game.