No offense, but it's not "bad game design," you just don't like it. Making it so character development decisions have an effect on your path through the game is a good thing in an RPG, in my opinion. In fact, it's actually more work and more difficult to do that than just allowing everyone to do everything so you don't have to deal with the eventualities of different character builds. Bad game design is making skills useless to avoid putting people in situations where their decisions prevent them from being able to do something. As much as I liked Fallout 3, I didn't feel like my character development decisions mattered much, and I was never presented with any real reason to put points into Speech until I had so many skill points that I had to dump them. That is bad game design.

Agreed. They should make it even more dependent on character for the next game.

:thumbsup:
Quite a bit more.

I wouldn't mind them going back to dragonage style of 3rd person camera.

Not going to happen. Bethesda has always been about first-person RPGs. And even if Obsidian gets to develop another Fallout game sometime down the line i doubt they'll modify the core mechanics of it. Like happened with New Vegas.

I actually really dislike third person RPG's. One of the biggest problems with Dragon Age was how completely impersonal it was, I didn't give a crap about anyone except Alastair and to a point, Morrigan. Even then I only started caring towards the end.
Worse, I didn't care for my character at all, ok I'm mute, that's fine, but it's not really me either, it's a person running around...I found it really hard to get involved and feel the character (ey up) with it in third person.

Yeah the same applied to the original fallouts as well, I found it difficult to effectively roleplay, the difference between options was enough to keep me intrigued though.



I would, however, like to see more emphasis on the character stats. Not sure how to do it without cutting into the shooter side of it too badly (I like being able to shoot without VATS, turn based is fine for some things but to me would be devastatingly slow for the new Fallouts). I did like the limitations, if you build a pure kill everything role of course you won't be able to subtly wind your way in, you just can't. If you want to play a game where it's purely your skill involved, go play MAG or something (almost said COD, skill, lol). Fallout be an RPG, broad category, yes, but skill limitations tend to be given by the character, not the player.

Why not have all three? Third-Person, Iso, and First-Person. Then you could also choose either octagonal movement or anolog movement. Then from there you could choose turn-based or real-time with VATS. Everyone wins.

That's more than likely true. However, it could probably have a healthy effect on Beth if they could renew their formulas a bit.. say, like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc

Interesting. First vs. third-person has absolutely no effect on my connection to the characters, personally. If anything being able to see my character creates more of a connection for me. The character isn't me, after all, just a character I'm controlling. One of the things I liked the most about Dragon Age (PC version) was the tactical combat, for which an overhead/3rd-person view is an absolute must. Fallout has never been much of a party tactics sort of game since you can't control your companions, so it makes little difference to me for Fallout. I wouldn't mind seeing some simple party controls a la Mass Effect implemented, though.

What? the characters where awesome, much better then anything gamesas turned out. Your mute in FO3, NV and every TES game as well! XD

whats good about the 3rd person RPG's is that character skills matter, more then twitch skills. there's a fundemental blockage between the two when you move to FPS territory. AKA if you level up you sniper/guns skill to say your CHARACTER is insanely accurate but say you as a player have shaky hands you'll never hit anything that your character should easily. VAT's really doesn't count because it's too close ranged. Plus you can't run and gun. That gives a experienced FPSer with even more advantage over the "normal" character.

They should really go back to the originals system for combat and view. It works much better for the series then this TES crap.

that will never happen UnDecaf, that would mean that gamesas would actually have to stop doing there one trick pony act for every game they develop, and stop shoehorning TES into everything!

IIRC didn't Todd an crew say they bought the FO series so they "can do something different"?

FPS/ 3PS would be a bit more likeable if Character Skill took a much higher role in combat than just a damage modifier. For instance, a character with a low Melee Weapons skill should be slow and clumsy. A person with low Small Guns skill should have trouble aiming (Swaying, Increased Percieved Recoil, and more muzzle rise). A person with a low Big Guns skill should have trouble with Recoil and Muzzle Rise.

I'm pretty sure they wanted to capitalize on the popularity of Oblivion and leverage their tech and experience to cut costs. There's nothing for it, really, outside of the series going to another developer. Personally I'm more concerned with content and RPG mechanics than the gameplay, though. I don't mind if it's TES-ish so long as stays true to the setting and remains an RPG instead of a shooter.

One can always dream... I can see Pete commenting to the press already (freely paraphrased(!) from when Fallout 3 was still in the making - with intentional hyperbole): "We don't just suddenly do something that we haven't been doing for 10 years, because that's just not something we do."

I think Todd and crew did say something about wanting to make something different (same recollection, I guess), which is why I think it's a bit odd that, in the end, they didn't do something all that different.

Anyways... They could give it a thought at least. Find the compromise between what they do and what Fallout once was.

FNV defintely had better writing, but has two main weaknesses: tons of extremely boring fed-ex quests. Get this, talk to this. Most of the time in the same town. Ugh, there is no challenge to that. Get your speech to 80 and half the game is a breeze. Second, the combat is just toooo sllooowww. Never felt challenged. Run for miles only to run into some Raider carrying a Varmant rifle. I swear my characters farts could kill off half the mobs in this game. But, that is a hallmark for Obsidian games: combat is easy. Well written quests are nice and all, but I could just read a book. Give me some action!

F3 was a better Sandbox world. Combat was better, but it to was easy. There was lots of combat too. Just want to mess around for 30 minutes and go kill stuff? Not a problem here.

And while lots of people hate Otimus Prime I thought it was kind of a neat idea. Afterall, your one character should not really be able to wipe out the whole Enclave single handed. Talk about in Army of One! It was different and unexpected.

And skip the whole map node system.

Edit: And speech is overblown in FNV. There are 13 skills in the game, with 99% of the skill checks being for speech. You *HAVE* to roll play a smooth talker if you want to experience a ton of content.

I think they played it safe, and stuck with what they know. "One-trick pony" maybe, but it's a neat trick. And a cute pony

Ponies are dead in Fallout :/.

I felt the same way about Fallout 3, though. The combat was either too easy (most of the time) or still easy and more annoying (bullet sponges). I didn't find the combat in FO3 fun past level 15 or so. The combat in NV wasn't much better, but DT and hardcoe mode helped a bit. At least Deathclaws were tougher. Same with the Fedex quests...I don't see the difference here outside of NV simply having more quests. The ratio of "Fedex" to "go here and kill this" seemed about the same to me. Not to mention the number of quests that could actually be approached in a variety of ways. I don't want to over-play it because it wasn't groundbreaking or anything, but Fallout 3 very rarely allowed much variety in the way things could be handled, and when it did it was a bit heavy-handed....almost contrived.


I have to disagree on both of these. Fallout 3 was a sandbox world with more stuff in it, but it was an inferior sandbox world in the sense that 1.) the world wasn't crafted at all...it seemed like they just scattered junk around randomly and it made no sense, had no justification, and had no continuity and 2.) was horrendously monotonous. The only variety was city vs. wasteland. The Mojave is full of places with enough character that you can at least tell them apart.

I can't see for a second how the combat was somehow better. It was the same, but "less." Can you elaborate?


I would have liked to at least help. I mean, why not at least create a quest line wherein the player can help the BoS re-activate it? At the very least? Please? All of the work you do up to that point is somewhat pointless when the BoS gets their superweapon Voltron Tranzor-Z Ultraman Liberty Prime going...all by themselves...without needing your help...at all.


Unexpected? Wasn't it totally expected from the second you saw the inside of the Citadel? Different? Right...nobody ever does Deus Ex Machina endings or giant robots. In fact, it's only the third time Bethesda has done it themselves. Sorry...upon re-reading this comes off as harsh. It's not meant to, but I'm too lazy to re-word it. :foodndrink:


I didn't find this to be true. Just as many of the conversation checks were Science, Medicine, etc. Besides, what's the big deal? They made Speech useful. It was pointless in Fallout 3, so they either needed to do what they did to make it worthwhile or get rid of it altogether. I rather prefer the "make it more useful" approach.


I would agree, but that damn pony bit me and left an Oblivion-shaped scar.

The battle for Hoover Dam was slightly epic... Very slightly... I kind of have to agree though. But it was still an amazing perfect game despite its many bugs. :brokencomputer: <-Pretend the computer is a PS3.

Sorry, I have doing multi quote replies.

Combat in F3 and FNV are both easy. FNV is just mind numbing easy. And there is hardly any combat in the game once you get past the scripted encounters. Unless you like shooting up Geckos. Even though F3 combat was easy, at least you had some.

Here is something, you can run from Primm to Nipton on the road and you will have two encounters. From Nipton to Novac there is one encounter. From Novac to Vegas there is *1* encounter. So that is a total of *4* encounters to travel the entire map.

Fast travel, hell yes there is nothing to see. Many of the random non-quests areas are pointless. No loot, nothing to kill. Pointless. Just get rid of the location all together. Some random locations in F3 were interesting as is(Like the Capital Building or the Haunted Building or the Caged Behmoth). Even without a quest. There is nothing like that in FNV. At less F3 had the skill books, tons of combat and *phat* loot. LOL, just had to say that.

On the subject of Voltron, I will admit I never saw it coming. Sometimes I think I am the only one who missed. But never played Deus Ex. BTW, what were the other super-being fights. Only one I can think of is from Oblivion and Martin.

Speech is to powerful in this game. Every character basically has to take speech or you miss out on a ton of content. There are hardly any other skill checks that really matter except for the Speech ones. Most other checks have other ways to complete the quest. More useful - yes. Not must have, like FNV.

The quests choices/consequences are far better in FNV - for the Major Questlines. No comparision there. But there are just too many small quests that are beyond boring. Go talk to that girl in the next town and have her come back here, help Joe Bob with his addicition. Talk the Ghoul Cowboy into being an escort. Heal the wounded NCR troopers with the equipment right next to them. See the town burned, now walk over here and tell someone about it. Follow the map marker and bring this back, just kill the two giant rats in the way. Not interesting, not fun.

Obsidian just needs to speed up the pacing.

A lot can be said about Fallout 3, shoot the raiders, shoot the fire ants, shoot the ghouls, shoot the bigots, shoot the commies, shoot the hippies, shoot the super mutants, shoot the wall, shoot the ground, shoot the shoot, yo dawg we heard you like shoot so we put shoot in your shoot so you can shoot while you shoot, yo shoot i am happy for you and imma let you shoot but shooting is one of the best shots of all time, all your shoot are belong to shooting...

Oh SHOOT!!!!!!



Its fun for me, better than shoot everything on sight like Fallout 3, and we have action/fps for that

Can I just mention, that at 170 posts, this thread is now EPIC

@Mako/Dario - Sure F3 had a lot of killing. Most RPG's do. There are just too many uninteresting filler quests in FNV. But I could take that if they also gave the player periods of combat to break it up. Spend time in the wasteland and have some action. Get to the next town and solve a quest or two. But instead you can play the game for hours and never shoot your gun. Even when you *want* some combat, and start wandering the Mojave there is nothing to kill. Other then some Geckos.

Ugh, I can only role play a smooth talking fed-ex delivery person for so long.

Oh the killing isnt the problem, the problem is that they make it the only preferable option, any other option usually means evil karma as you are most likely helping them or letting them keep doing evil or whatever, either that or you are royally shooting yourself in the foot.

Iagree a bizillion percent fonv is very boring after the main quest there way to many pointless side quest i mean volare is full of them kill ants tell a [censored] she can go to nelis fix a guy with the equipment on the table only fun 1 was get the plane.