How dare you give me a choice!

@Gizmo:

You know...you can just...Not push the button that triggers VATS. It's optional. It's there if you WANT it. Using VATS will not be required to complete the game. You're stuck on this idea that just because it's a mechanic that it has to be used. Not true. I can and have played Fallout 3 and New Vegas just fine with and without VATS. It's not required, you're just choosing to believe it's required.

Wasn't a headshot while Hidden/Sneaking, a 100% crit in FO3/NV?

God I hate this "crits on demand" thing doesn't make much sense that it's governed by luck either.

Player self control is not a basis for game design, or an issue inside the game mechanics. One either plays the game or they don't.

I never noticed. It'd be pretty terrible if it was.

Well... It's always been influenced by Luck; but in the previous games Luck would not negate the need for [PC] skill, and was never absolute.

YOU can also build a character that can get well into the 80's if not 100% chance to crit at all times depending on the gear, luck, and perks.

Today I learned Final Fantasy is an action shooter for having a similar mechanic in the form of limit breaks.

In Fallout 1 & 2 (and as all Fallout sequels should have followed), the maximum chance is always 95% ~regardless of (PC) skill. Any bonuses above 95% were applied to the penalties, and could cause it to remain at the 95% cap longer than without them. It was a tenet of the series that no one was perfect; not even experts.

100% auto-crits are 100% counter to the series intentions.

I like the crit meter. I know that crit is supposed to be random, but i hate random things in combat. I like knowing what i have and what i can do with it, also won't this make your crit feel more like your earned them rather then you got them because hey stat. Luck still helps you to charge up the crit meter. If there is one change i am a 100% ok with from the previous Fallout games, its this one.

The entire concept of "critical" hits, as used in games, is rather dumb in the first place.
>Shoot guy in the middle of the head with a large caliber gun, no critical because RNG says so
>Shoot the game guy, in the same spot in the head, with the same gun, critical because RNG says so.
Its honestly rather stupid and unrealistic.

One of the few games I have ever seen do critical hits well is Borderlands, where criticals are something you get for shooting specific enemy weak points, that usually make sense as being weak points given the nature/design of the enemy.

I would have honestly preferred that, on top of the guaranteed sneak attack crits, then this, but this is not that bad either.

Fallout 3/NV already had some steps in that direction, with mirelurk faces being weak points, robots having combat inhibitors, and ants having their antenna, and I would have rather had things like those been turned into crit zones.

Any successful hit anywhere on a target was 100% if you where hidden, thats why stealth focus builds got such a upswing in popularity in both 3 and NV (heck NV even added a crit dmg perk specifically aimed at making stealth attacks nastier)

I also need to repeat the idea that a mechanic based on RNG that can potentially win or lose a fight is inherently flawed.

So I assume you dislike people who decide to say make melee only characters, because apparently choosing not to use guns is not playing the game.

That perception is mistaken. The critical IS when you hit the guy in the middle of the head... and when you don't get a critical, that's because the aim was off ~but still managed to hit something.

Why exactly do you think so? (I think it's the best possible mechanic for any RPG; and have said why many times.)

Hmm, browsing through the various wikis, it looks like:

Fallout 3/NV - there's a random % chance of critical during normal combat, there's a bonus added while in VATS, and any sneak attack is an auto-crit with extra bonus damage.

For contrast:

Oblivion - no crits during regular combat. Sneak attack is auto crit, damage bonus determined by Sneak skill

Skyrim - % chance of crits during regular combat, based on combat perks taken. Sneak attack is auto crit, bonus determined by Sneak perks.

(technically, "sneak attack" and "crit" are two different mechanics, with different damage bonuses. So sneak attack isn't really an "auto-crit", it's just a damage bonus)

Excluding a grazing hit that just scratches the head, a bullet positioned two inches to the left of the middle is still going to cause critical damage.

Funny, because I hit guys in the middle of the head all the time in-game and yet dont get critical hits on all of them.

Now THAT is a problem.

It's not truly impartial, you can skew the RNG in your favor with the Finesse perk and your luck stat.

Well, for the "things should be determined by character skill, not player skill" crowd, the fact that you're giving any importance at all to "I hit the guy in the head all the time" is a problem.

This is an inherent issue when combining dice-roll mechanics with live-action mechanics. Finding the balance between "player skill" and "character skill" is difficult. Like in Morrowind, for instance, where some people were annoyed that they saw their sword swing hit the guy, but the dice roll said it was a miss..... dice-rolling works much better with turn-based games & live action games that are indirectly controlled (like the Baldur's Gate/Dragon Age:O "real time with pause" thing, where you issue orders to your characters who run around trying to do them, not actually aim-n-click for an attack)

I just don't understand how luck factors into a result that is 100% guaranteed.

I still largely found it annoying in DAO

>give sten this big ass two handed sword

>he is like 1 foot from the enemy he is attacking

>miss for seemingly no reason.

the shot doesn't have a 100% chance to hit

I don't see it as an issue, Vats is optional anyway.

That is indeed a problem; but usually just in close FPP/TPP games with RPG mechanics. Fallout never had that problem, nor did Fallout 2. The PC was never unintentionally depicted firing a shot that was better than the determined outcome. FO3 though (as we know) could show the target getting 32 headshots ~with blood spatters, with the target still standing and still shooting back.

See, I didn't have any problem with that. Because I'm used to games (RPGs, tabletop miniatures games, wargames, etc) where I'm observing units from above and they have some random chance to hit. It's normal to me. Especially since I'm not directly controlling that attack - I told Sten to do attack that dude, whether he hits or misses is up to him, not me.

It just gets fuzzier for a lot of people in first person games, because the view & control is much more immediate, so "missing" when you clearly "hit" can be harder for some to deal with.

Maybe, but I don't believe luck affects VATS accuracy. It does however, affect the recharge rate of the crit. meter which will cause a 100% chance to score a critical hit if the attack reaches the target. Luck may not have an immediate link to critical hits in this fashion, but it does play a role in it which is why I am not sure how it makes sense.