According to you, but not according to any RPG I've played.

[These are the same things.]
Did you understand the context of my suggestion? What I said was that I would rather there not be a filling critical hit meter, (with a free-to-fire critical hit ~or even just an attempt, on demand); and that it would be better IMO if the the shooter and target's current circumstances affected the chance instead.

Can you prove that?

Giz...It seems to me like you really want to dislike Fallout 4. You've already made up your mind. You're not even in front of the bathroom mirror, and you've just decided dislike it.

Ive never seen an RPG do crits like you describe it, not even the old Fallout's worked like that. Criticals have always be a % stacked on top of your base hit % in basically every RPG ever made.

You have a 45% chance to hit a normal shot, and a 12% chance to get a crit on that hit. Meaning you have like a 5.4% chance to get a critical hit.

If the shot hits or not is never determined by your crit %, only your base hit chance, crit % only determines if that hit is a crit or not.

Things like terrain advantage, and how hidden behind something your enemy is or not, has never done anything to effect crit chance, why would it? It only effects base hit chance.

If TES 6 were announced last week, and it was this game here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5l6bv-Zok
How would you (or anyone here) decide? [Now this is an honest question.]

Accusations of prejudgment happened for FO3 as well; and that was before I knew better. I do not want to dislike any Fallout game, but it's plain to see in their product demo, that though it is an official Fallout sequel, it has no respect for the series mechanics, and blatantly discards them for candy-floss gameplay. That IS something to dislike and is plain to see even this far out. The OP example shows it.

That's terribly broad; how can you possibly think you know " basically every RPG ever made"?

Fallout is the first RPG that I saw with a percentile Critical hit. (That doesn't mean that there aren't others like it, of course.)

A lot of the posters on this board seem that way

Giz: I reserve judgement until I actually get my hands on it and play it. Or read some honest reviews. It's obvious you've made up your mind about the game as it stands.

Steaming water is probably hot. It's fair to reserve judgment, but do you not take Fo3 into account?

As I see it, my OP asked a question, one that was disturbing because it seemed to imply something bad; others answered ~confirming it (as much as anything can be confirmed; we still don't really know), but if so that is another nail in the coffin. That is not prejudgment that is speculation, and not liking how it looks to be.

There are things I like about the demo, but gameplay doesn't seem to be one of them; and doesn't seem very Fallout-like.

I question a bunch of their design choices but overall I'm very excited for the game. Plenty of people are going to play it and judge it as a game first, then a Fallout game second, just to be fair to it. We say the things we do because this forum is supposed to be about input. I'm excited for

-layered armor

-new power armor

-art design

-weather system

-improved shooting (you either do one form or the other imo)

-specialized enemy movesets

The list goes on for a while. Don't mistake criticism for people being Black Isle fan-boys. We just want to improve certain aspects of the game.

So are you going to be buying Fallout 4 and using your money to contribute to Bethesda's vision, despite knowing full well what exactly it entails?

I guess it all boils down to the fact that we/I don't see FO4 as that extremely different from FO3, not remotely in the same ballpark as Skyrim compared to that thing you linked.

Now, if you're still, for some unknown reason, trying to compare FO4 to FO1/2 (as if FO3/NV never happened), then I could understand you being so aghast about the changes.

-----

re: critical hits. I've not played every RPG out there (not even close), but I can't think of any that have modifications to your crit chance based on the target's actions. Aside, of course, from the normal "bonus against unaware target"/stealth attack & "auto kill sleeping target" thing.

Giz: I happened to actually like FO3, and I played it blind, no reviews or anything. I read the box cover, paid the price, took it home, and enjoyed myself for quite some time.

But of course.

The license comes with a license for the GECK; If it doesn't, I won't buy the game.

Nothing wrong with that.

lol.. I had to google that, but yeah. Who know's, maybe it won't be so bad. Fallout 3's VATS seemed to be super over powered. Maybe this new system will reflect our stats more.

Well its good to see that despite the icey exterior you put up, deep down you know that Bethesda is good enough to put your money on. Money talks, and when you have been a paying customer for years, it sends a very direct message to Bethesda that they can feel safe knowing that they will always have your money.

Ohh god Gizmo, it was a figure of speech and you know it.

Most RPGs I've ever played had a % critical chance, that or rolled a 20 sided dice to see if you passed the roll or w/e. But that's still the same thing, just presented in a different manner. A 25% chance to crit is no different then a "you need a 16-20" roll. Its still a % based roll, just visualized differently.

^^^

This, exactly.

I like these.

Well... using the GECK is for the attempt to fix it; to see what can be done with mods.
(It's why I bought FO3.)

Whether you mod the game or not, you're still paying Bethesda for that privilege which empowers the decisions they've made.

You have to pay for the GECK license; or you don't get to use it.

Voting with one's dollars is pointless when it's a drop in the Ocean and prohibits access to the toolset.

If the entire RPG loving community voted with their dollars, it would still be drops in the bucket against.

**Minor aside: Technically my question has been answered; and there has been little mention of VATS for a while now. I'd like to keep the thread open until new information emerges... While I'm fine with the thread so far, I doubt it can remain open if we keep talking about things other than VATS.

It doesn't change the fact that you're subscribing to a developer whose decisions you disagree with.

I've seen thread derailment far worse than this make it to post limit.

I just watched the xbox footage again, it appears that criticals are still possible outside of vats... When the pc enters the area with Preston Garvey and shoots the second raider, he does a critical... but the pc never entered vats.

That happens in every game from any developer. There are things I have against Vampire:Bloodlines, Fallout; Fallout 2; Pillars of Eternity; Wasteland 2; Bard's Tale 4... Probably even Torment (besides its turn based combat; which would count as something against).

That's part of the problem; if it did.


They are.

each to there own, to me it looks Fallout like, well bethesda Fallout like, which is honestly the kind that kinda counts since they own the IP.

It's just an observation that I have made based on posts I have read by you. The more I read the more I see a deep disappointment with the direction of Fallout's RPG elements or mechanics. You don't seem to be happy with the changes, so why put up with it.

It's one thing to dislike one or two mechanics/elements while still enjoying the many other elements of a game. The situation is different when it's swapped around.

I'll leave you to your devices anyhow.

It's an entirely different game using the Fallout label.
(What's to like about that? I don't even see the RPG elements you mention.)

*However: This is the official Fallout forum, and the current and upcoming Fallout titles allow modding via the Geck, so in theory, their mess can be fixed.