False.

Your definition of RPG differs from mine. At it's core rpg is just that - a role playing game. Some rpgs offer players the ability to take it to the next level, others offer different avenues. At face value, it's still Fallout - the engine has just been swapped out.

Prove it?

(Any example? I can give plenty of examples; VATS would be but the first.)

Read the edit.

Say what you want about our friend Gizmo here, but I find the charge-o-meter incredibly dull. What makes the crit special anymore? It's more akin to an Ultimate ability in The Elder Scrolls Online now.

I don't really think that the charge-o-meter is great either. What I do see though is an attempt by Bethesda to balance VATs by eliminating the increased chance to crit, and replacing it with said meter. It would function as a means to let players use VATs to focus fire specific body parts. Personally, just removing the inherent +15% chance to crit from the original VATs would have sufficed.

I don't see how that can matter. The engines don't matter. Bethesda's FO3 engine is superb for a Fallout game; their usage of it falls short though IMO.

I say they are entirely different games, they are. VATS proves it first; it's of polar opposite purpose, and is in the game simply as a vestigial showpiece; people even think it a nod to turn based mechanics.

In the series prior to FO3 the PC was paramount, in FO3 it's ornamentation. Prior, the PC's actions were binding; the player's development of the PC was binding. In FO3, the PC's actions are dust in the wind, and the player's development of the PC is almost frivolous. They are different games each for a different customer base ~but with the same name.

That FO4 seems to offer on demand criticals cements this. In prior games, aimed shots were a risk that could get the PC killed; and in FO3 (perhaps FO4) VATS was a way to soak damage at need, and shoot more than once at one or more targets simultaneously.

A single perk in f1 and f2 made every last hit a crit in melee. Another one made every last hit a crit with max luck for ranged.

So bethesda is way more balanced.

I like the new feature.

I will concede, the crits in VATS were broken. But yet, that's what made them so satisfying when you landed them. This is why I agree with you. Because if the chance to land crits was lower, combined with possibly nerfing perks like Finesse, then the system would be far more balanced.

A charge-o-meter is just something I can't be excited for. Todd talks of RPG numbers still rolling under the hood of the game, but those numbers are looking pretty skimpy right about now.

Sidenote: It also doesn't make sense that it's influenced by luck. I get it, luck influenced crits in all the other games, but now the meter charges no matter what. I was ABOUT to suggest that the meter get charged by the SPECIAL governing the skill of your current weapon, but..... Well I won't start that conversation.

Perks were far ~far more valuable a commitment in Fallout and Fallout 2, than FO3. PCs got perks every 3 or 4 levels.

*What perk was that btw? I don't recall that one. Slayer was a perk that made unarmed attacks all critical, but you had to be 18th level to get it; the game should have been over by then.

My experience with RPGs stems from D1 and 2, TQ/Immortal Throne, Deus Ex, TES, and other games with a similar nature. For me, they achieved what I find and value in an RPG. Fo3/FNV both achieved that same end result and I was more than satisfied by it. I admittedly don't RP, but it doesn't impact my ability to enjoy an RPG because in the end I'm assuming a role and following or guiding the character in their journey.

I won't subscribe to your belief that the Fo3 protag's actions are dust in the wind. Decisions can be made that impact the game world - certainly not on the scale that Fo1/2 offered, but they are still there.

It's still Fallout in name and spirit. The only thing that has changed is how the developers allow players to experience the universe.

* With that said, I don't intend to continue this discussion with you so I will bow out. I respect your opinion but I simply can't agree with it. We've essentially come full circle, and I go back to my original point: don't support a developer where the cons in their game outweigh your pros.

Good night.

Do you not recall that the PC can beat anyone half to death and then buy back their good graces with water bottles?
That the PC can shoot the BOS guards at the Citadel gate and return to join the Brotherhood?

The first choice you get is Nuke or don't Nuke... and what comes of that? (Any practical difference, besides cosmetic?)

And the ending?

How about this for dust in the wind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKqHcT16Xio

*And this as an aside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJX-tnuZ0c

Of the nuke: The Fallout series (until FO3) treated the (scarce!) nuclear weapons with reverence and irony. The PC can save the world in the end game, using the weapon that almost destroyed it. FO3 makes it a gag in the first act.

I get a lot of flak for it, but I just want a better game; preferably with more faithful gameplay (which will never happen from them). But I always feel I'm one of the few *kids* in the crowd asking for carrots and sprouts instead of bubble gum.

They probably could have just made it not defined by a stat to begin with and just something that charged itself with use of hits in VATs or outside of it. Honestly, they just wanted to give people another reason to pick up luck besides just more rare loot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting

Yes the perks were more unbalanced before f3.

Slayer also worked for melee.

Sniper was the ranged one. Lvl 18 f1, lvl 24 f2.

why would they do it like that when in 3/nv they game always attempted a critical with every single bullet? Seams more like a downgrade to go from a atempt to crit with every bullet to attempt to crit with one bullet after some time passes. Would make much more sense that its a meter for a assured critical.

Plus so far every critical shot with this that has been shown has clearly shown to have actually connected a deadly, critical hit.

no offense but the flak is mostly because ya acting more like a necrofiliac thats trying to convince that its okey to marry a corpse, while some of us has moved on and accepted that Black isle Fallout is a dead pile of bones, ya kinda akwardly grabbing for the shovel.

Rather... It comes from expecting an empathic RPG that is PC-centric, due to the Fallout name being used.

Where the problem stems from is that Bethesda has swapped fan-bases, and made their gameplay suit their new audience instead of the series proper, and the audience scoffs at the former design, wanting only empowerment fantasy. This is brutally apparent seeing the recent demo, and how Bethesda chose to show it off. (Because they know it.)

Essentially Fallout is a series that would tell the player 'No' if their character failed, or wasn't up to a given task; but the FO3 audience reacts to being told 'No' like getting doused with boiling water. They react to the kind of game the Fallouts are supposed to be, as many young Americans often react to tasting Vegemite for the first time.

The market is still there for a deeper game; Kickstarter has proven it. The wonderful thing about the original Fallout devs is that they can make superb Fallout game without using a single asset from the Fallout IP, and I'm hoping they do; sometime soon. They invented it all, they can do it again; it's not a magic secret sauce to them. They have the recipe.

** They were making one when Bethesda bid for the IP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzYmQyHl2bc

fair deal, good luck in your search for this new game, not every Fallout fan and walk the road forever, I still like the view even after being on the road from the begining and will keep walking it.

If there was a market for a "deeper" game (fallout 1 and 2 were anything but deep) the industry would take advantage of that.


Guess what? The industry has not taken advantage of it. What logical conclusion can we draw form this?

Well, if you're intelligent the first thing that comes to mind should be that there is no market.

This is further proven by what recently happened to xcom; they have to forgoe 66% of the industry because the turn based model isn't interesting at all for the majority of gamers.

So, lesson over: Now OT: the charging crit meter seems to be there to make luck more attractive. Again, I feel like the only intelligent person here but I'll shed some insight.

Skills are gone and so is the skill bonus luck gave to all skills. This means that luck's value dropped dramatically. At this point all it does is make criticals more likely, but that isn't a very interesting mechanic.

How do we make them more interesting? Well I'm glad you asked audience. You make luck affect something else! What does luck also do? Crit chance! Let's build upon that.

So we add a meter that builds up as you spend time in vats right? (this also has the added bonus of adding synergy to attributes; a core rpg mechanic though the dummies will continue to call it dumbing down).

Now we give lucky characters a hard cool down to fall back on. Strong characters have more damage in melee. It's a tangible bonus.

Endurance? More health = more staying power = more damage.

Perception lets you get the jump on a group easier, you'll always start the fight off if you see them before they see you. Also, VAT accuracy bonus. Again, a direct effect on your character that is noticeable.

Charismatic characters will talk their way out of an engagement. Also better barter prices = more money = better equipment = overall a more powerful character. Again, tangible bonuses.

Intelligent characters level quickly, so will have more perks than your average character.

And then we come to luck. Without a crit meter the special stat you invested all these points into could very well do nothing in an encounter (doesn't make much sense right? You're lucky; you should come out on top often). With the meter you can actively make use of this stat.

Class dismissed.

Well... Wasteland 2 drew in way more than they asked for and sold out before they released.
(And they did it again with Torment.)

If there is no market for it, then that wouldn't have happened. If there is no mass-market for it?... well that's not surprising at all in this day and age.

Was wasteland 2 a triple A game?

It wasn't?

Then it doesn't matter how well it did. A game this size requires a lot of money and turn based will not earn that money back. If it did big developers would be taking advantage of the interest.

Guess what they aren't doing? Making turn based games.

Guess why. It would be a loss of money. Companies make money, and they do it the best way possible. If there was a large interest in turn based games, companies like EA and ubisoft would be all over them. They are not all over them in the slightest.

Next question please.

AAA game is a meaningless title.

*Well... not technically. Technically it seems to mean roughly about how much money they plan to spend advertising it.

You know... this stuff: http://manatank.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/eso-building1.jpg

http://gamingshogun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/skyrim-advert-1024x768.jpg
(Because it's needed.)

Well, you have to spends millions on advertising. That's what buys the GOTY awards

It's meaningless how exactly?

It represents a title that is using the best of the best in the industry. A title that is going to cost a ton of money to make due to whatever technology it is using during development, along with the talent that is putting work into the game. It's the equivalent of a Daniel Day-Lewis film.

But yea, I guess saying uneducated things like it only signifies how much money they put into advertisemant is valid.

Not to mention Divinity: Original Sin that sold so well that not only is Larian porting the game for consoles, but also expanding with two new studios.

You mean like Aliens:Colonial Marines?

It doesn't mean anything but that they plan to spend [too much] money on it.