Something I'd really like to see in the next FO : Fallout Series Discussion

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:41 am

No, they aren't. But they are the most profitable and most numerous. Thus, why developers should focus a lot on them.
"Choices can only be chosen" - Sure, that would work. And it's not too hard to make a challenge. Max difficulty slider, remove HUD, only search in some boxes instead of looking in everything, don't loot bodies, only carry a few stimpacs at a time, and be evil so you clear out a lot of potentially helpful people, (General section, no spoilers of specific targets.) Wear armor that looks decent instead of strong defensive armor, Maybe even add in a RP aspect, dont increase intellect so much, don't get comprehension or intense training or that one that adds +3 skill points per level up. Use weapons with abundance of ammo but horrid damage, like 10MM sub or even just the pistol.
I don't know about you, but i think that would be VERY difficult.

You know what I miss? When developers made games because they were fun, not because it would get them the most money. As for your suggestions on making the game more difficult, I don't want to set my own limits. I just want the game to be challenging, and not challenging in the sense that enemies are tougher, and do more damage. Setting my own limits does nothing to create a legitimate challenge. If anything, it makes me more annoyed at Bethesda.

Would it? Where would the resources required to implement this be taken form? zIf I were a developer, and someone asked for this, the first thing I would think of is why should we do this when we know it's going to be the first aspect of the game to be modded, and besides, it's impossible to please everyone.

No, it's impossible to please everyone? Inconceivable!

However, it is certainly more then possible to please MORE people. Resources? Please, you make it sound like they barely were able to complete the game. And that's one thing that makes me dislike the mods, is that now it becomes an excuse to say why Bethesda didn't do something. Why bother? Let the modding community do that! What the hell kind of answer is that?

» Sat May 28, 2011 12:53 am

You know what I miss? When developers made games because they were fun, not because it would get them the most money. As for your suggestions on making the game more difficult, I don't want to set my own limits. I just want the game to be challenging, and not challenging in the sense that enemies are tougher, and do more damage. Setting my own limits does nothing to create a legitimate challenge. If anything, it makes me more annoyed at Bethesda.

God, I remember during Diablo 2's run, Blizzard released patches that decreased the damage done by certain spells because they were overpowered. Imagine. A patch that was released for the purpose of making the game more challenging. Sounds like bad business these days. I can understand why the ability to kill everything and do everything without worrying about ammo or dying is appealing to some people. But that's the kind of gameplay I'd expect from a rail shooter, not something on the level of Fallout.

No, it's impossible to please everyone? Inconceivable!

However, it is certainly more then possible to please MORE people. Resources? Please, you make it sound like they barely were able to complete the game. And that's one thing that makes me dislike the mods, is that now it becomes an excuse to say why Bethesda didn't do something. Why bother? Let the modding community do that! What the hell kind of answer is that?

Mods are the only reason I continue playing this game. The vanilla version is just so damn insubstantial. Funnily enough, most of the mods that I have begin with the lines "This mod brings back the..." Good to know the real fans of the originals are working to make FO3 a true sequel. Apparently, the people who are "such big fans of the series" can't be bothered to allocate resources. <_<

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:47 am

That's cute.

:hehe:

I don't accept that FO3 as an imitation, or fundamentally inferior to FO2, but rather different. Some aspects are better, some are worse. Much is different.

That's the basis for my comparison... In each case one is fundamentally different from the other; One can say, "This is better than Crab", but cannot say "This is better Crab".

F1 & F3 don't compete in the same arena, and each wins by default in its own.... But Fallout's Arena is the series it spawned, to surpass it... a contender must compete, and beat it at it's own game; and as you say... Fallout 3 is much [too] different.

Back to what I'd like to see in FO4:

Aside from RP mechanic improvement which we have discussed at length, I'd like to see:
-Ability to place and arrange objects.
-Multiple player placed map markers.
-Separate armor pieces.
-A larger selection of weapons, including primitive weapons.
-A larger selection of mobs.

Seconded each and every one. (except for Power Armor, which should always be a one piece suite for full benefits, but with removable helmet ~causing the loss of vision modes, and hermetic air filtration.)

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:54 am

God, I remember during Diablo 2's run, Blizzard released patches that decreased the damage done by certain spells because they were overpowered. Imagine. A patch that was released for the purpose of making the game more challenging. Sounds like bad business these days.

Well, Diablo 2 was also a multiplayer game, so it was probably meant to balance different characters in multiplayer better, not to make the game more challenging.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:50 pm

I actually agree with you both.

I'm a casual, hardcoe gamer.

I like what someone said about the difficulty slider affecting this aspect of game play, why not make everyone happy.

A casual harcore gamer? Isnt that like being a massively single player online game?

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:28 pm

A casual harcore gamer? Isnt that like being a massively single player online game?

That's what SPORE is right?

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:02 am

That's what SPORE is right?

Hah!

Yes

I was very disappointed with that game >_<

» Sat May 28, 2011 6:26 am

That's what SPORE is right?

Don't get me started on that game...

That's an example of a game I feel so did not live up to it's potential, and tried so hard to appeal to a broad userbase that it alienated the more "hard-core" fans (and I really need to think of a better term than that...)

As a matter of perspective - that's a game that I was so dissapointed in that I stopped posting in the forums there. I might have some misgivings about Fallout 3, but I like it enough to see some potential in future iterations of the product, and very much pleased with the final product. With Spore I see a game with tremendous potential that just did not translate into a very compelling game - whereas as far as Fallout 3 is concerned I see a good game that just didn't go the extra mile in what I feel are some key areas.

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:53 am

But if we're talking about things I'd like to see changed to make the game better (based on my own preferences) then very high on that list are going to be changes so that I don't have to arbitrarily limit myself, or use a boat-load of mods, to get full enjoyment out of it.

Obviously the ideal situation would be the ability to completely tailor the game to anyone's personal tastes. Again, I would like to see sliders or config files, or any other way to do this (We do have GECK), but we do not have these options to us. We simply make due or not, as the mood suits us. The game will be tuned to the tastes of the majority of the target audience, for better or worse.