So the Fallout bug is really kicking in hard for me. Yesterday, I went back and restarted New Vegas and was surprised to see how much easier VATS made combat compared to just targeting with iron sights. Sometimes it feels like VATS gives too much of an advantage. I usually just prefer to play Fallout like a normal FPS and its frustrating that in some situations we are almost forced to target in VATS.

Now, I understand this is part of Fallout and, lets be clear, I dont think it needs to be removed. For those of you thinking about posting useless responses of 'Don't use it if you don't like it,' to that I say I certainly plan to play my own way. I am just hoping that Bethesda can bring more of the 'shooter' aspect into Fallout 4. So far I've read good things, isnt Bethesda bringing in a consultant from Bungie? Will they be able to really step up combat in Fallout 4?

consultant from bungie and ID Software even, apparently since Beth are the publishers of the new Doom they could easly convince a guy or two from that dev team to pop over and give some pointers. So far from the dedicated grenade hotkey to the (possible) existence of a dedicated melee with your gun button and just the overall feel I gotten rom the E3 vids the combat looks sooo fun already.

The point is from a developer standpoint is that VATS makes the game enjoyable and playable for people who just really svck at aiming and reaction time. You would be surprised how many people thing VATS is essential to fallout. I'm right there with you in that I don't use VATS and I play it more like and fps. But a lot of fallout fans love and need VATS or else they will complain that the game is "turning into a generalized FPS and isn't fallout anymore"

Just be glad Bethesda is fixing the areas that needed work for us who like to play the game aiming down the sights.

The combat in 3 and NV was pretty bad. It just didn't feel at all smooth. Things look a lot better this time around. VATS definitely gives you an advantage, but I never felt like it took anything away from the game.

I think what bugs me about VATS the most is that it feels like you do significantly more damage compared to normal combat, why is that?

again, because they want people who aren't good at reaction time, aiming, or combat in video games to enjoy the games. It means better results for Bethesda

Because in F3 & NV you spend a lot of your time missing?

I svck at FPS games, they just ain't my thing. For me VATS was a god send to play FO3. Yes it is a bit overpowered up close, but that's when I need it the most! At distance I rarely if ever use VATS as I can take my time and aim carefully, but when the action gets hot and heavy, I just need the help.

The obvious balance point is for VATS to be about as effective as first person shooting for the average player.

If you're a big Call of Dooty player (sorry, couldn't resist), then VATS should be not quite as good as your awesome shooting skills.

If you svck at those games or just prefer not to play that way, then VATS should be at least comparable.

And of course, if perks are VATS or FPS specific then you can put them into whatever playstyle suits you best.

Fallout 3 had the big problem where VATS was massively superior in almost all situations. NV was a bit better though.

If I have time to carefully line up a shot, I can almost guarantee a one-shot, one-kill attack even though VATS previously showed I had, like, at MOST a 15% chance to hit the torso. Sometimes I'll use VATs just to ~identify~ the target. Sometimes foes are so far away it's hard to see them (but they show up on the compass). So I fire up VATS and when it zooms in, I can see the percentages. Then I release VATS and when the camera pans back, it leaves my cursor ON the target, and I can then eyeball the shot without using VATS and (usually) hit more often than VATS stats say I should.

I'm a little wary of the time-slow VATS compared to the time-stop VATS for this reason; especially fighting close-up foes that move fast (Cazadores), being able to just stop time and let the game take the shots saved my sanity. I also hope that activating the slow-time VATS does not somehow alert the foes to my presence (regular VATS doesn't so slow-time VATS should not, but one never knows how things may change)....

I honestly don't even think the issue is that many players "svck at aiming". Rather, its more that players svck at aiming in Gamebryo.

Let's be honest, even with New Vegas's shooting improvements it felt like the PC had two broken arms in both FO3/NV. The word I would use to describe it would be "ridgid". Close up encounters with Cazadors or Death Claws made VATS a very valuable tool.

The good news is that based on the already famous "ready to [censored] some [censored] up" trailer, the problem looks to be completely fixed. The new gunplay makes me think I'm in store for a Call Of Duty title because its so fluid. I'm excited and I have a feeling I'll be spending considerably less time in VATS

I had hoped they'd tweak that VATS thing of theirs in a different manner (still holding on to the "pause" feature, but broadening the functionality), even though it was expected that it becomes a slow-mo gimmick.

Seems that absolutely everything goes exactly the opposite direction of what I had my fingers crossed for.

No surprises there.

My thoughts exactly, I was just about to bring this up. I'm a pretty skilled FPS player, not trying to pat myself on the back or anything, but I'm decent enough. Even so, I find it difficult at times because the shooting mechanics are not very fluid.

I've never been entirely clear on what role VATS "should" play in the game, what clear role it was intended to fill, and a couple things about it's implementation still feel lopsided to me. I just have no idea about the thing, to be honest. I use it, sure, but I've never been entirely sure about how I've felt about it.

For one, it's pretty much entirely a construct of Bethesda's. In Fallout 1 and 2 you could take an aimed shot that took more time to line up (ie, used more AP than a regular shot,) and had a smaller chance to hit for the benefit of a higher chance of a critical if you did manage to hit. It was very much about risk/reward and maximizing your DPS. Other than being able to make a called shot, VATS has nothing in common with that. There is no drawback to using VATS, AP exists solely to fuel it (so basically there were Action Points in Fallout 1, but Fallout 3's AP shares no relation other than the name,) and it means the combat system now makes use to two totally different and unconnected mechanics at the same time (real-time shooting alongside what's basically a percentile-based killcam bullet-time.)

It always seemed lopsided to me that you make a percentile roll to hit in VATS, based on your skills; and those same skills have a totally different impact on the real-time shooting. I don't know how you'd do it, but it would just feel better to me if there was one system that worked equally across the whole game. (For example, in Dungeons and Dragons (let's use 5th edition just because that's the one I'm playing now) whatever it is you're doing you roll a d20, add your relevant bonuses and compare that to the difficulty set by the DM. VATS is like if sometimes you rolled a d20 to hit something, but other times you drew from a deck of cards to do the same thing.) (And for another related parenthetical that's why it's bugged me that some skill checks are tiered and some are percentile rolls - again, that'd be like in D&D if you rolled a d20 to unlock a door but not if you wanted to knock it down.)

But...

I use VATS all the time. When Mass Effect first came out, I started using it's Command menu to sort of insta-pause the game, look around, catch my breath, plan out what I was doing, etc. I'm a turn-based player, I like having some time to think about what I'm going to do. So I used VATS a lot for the same thing - even if I had no AP to use to make a shot my rhythm sort of broke down to going into VATS to plan my next move, exchanging some fire with my chosen enemy, then tapping back into VATS to scope out where I was going next.

I'm also a big fan of the kill-cams and since I play in third-person anyway I like seeing any time it does something cinematic. I rarely found VATS to be terribly over-powered, though. I used it more to catch my breath than an "insta-kill" I suppose. I mean, I'm a turn-based gamer but it's not like FPS games are so complicated or hard that people can't get the hang of it (it really isn't that hard to put a cursor over something and hit a button.)

For Fallout 4 I just have no idea how it's going to play out. Sure, we know some details but it's one of those things I'll have to play with it to see how I feel. I think what I would have liked to see would be instead of VATS, an "Aiming" mechanic that worked almost the same way but required you to remain still and line up a shot - leaving you exposed in the process. But, there's more than one way to skin a cat, so if that's not the road they go down it won't innately mean it's going to be a bad thing...

I only really ever used VATs for crippling Cazadors and DCs, some tough enemies and surprise attacks. ( and when I felt like slowly dismembering somebody )

Which is worth it...I guess.

I never had any real problem with real time combat though , especially in NV.

However in NV with Project Nevada / WoP....VATs is a must.

VATs should stay in the game..they should add more hit zones though. Groin, eyes etc.

I just don't want FO3 s version of VATs...too OP.

In FO3, there was a 15% crit bonus in VATS. NV toned it down to 5%.

Personally, I mostly use it for annoying enemies who're spastically bouncing all over the place (ie., moving too randomly & quickly for me to aim, cause I svck ) Dogs & melee raiders at point blank range who Just Won't Stand Still, for instance.

Yes NV nerfed VAT hard on long distances, might work better if I put more perks into improving it, on close range against moving enemies it was still devastating. Mostly as it let me put in an series of head shots.

My favorite tactic as low level in FO3 was to hide behind an corner, wait for enemies to come around and then use VAT on them.

I also often used vat just to identify targets in NV.

My main issue with slo-mo VAT is how unresponsive it sometimes is, it desperately want to target my comrades then trying aim the dammed thing to do an headshot.

I'm pretty sure the speed in VAT is easy to mod anyway, perhaps even adjust speed.

I have no idea how anyone could claim that VATS offers an advantage. It offers extremely limited targeting based on character ability rather than player twitching (i.e., it is the RPG aspect and should be emphasized since this is supposed to be an RPG not an FPS). However, the specific mechanics of it have severe drawbacks. It is notoriously inaccurate. In addition, the maximux chance to hit is 95% and that is not achievable for a long time. Finally, it only allows a couple of shots, at most, with any sort of weapon that does good damage in the mid- to late-game (e.g., rifles or big guns... this excludes explosives, of course, but they need to be close range to throw). Having a couple of good targeted shots won't do any good if you are attacked by 3 or more enemies simultaneously, or even a single very strong enemy. You'll still wind up dead or at least severely wounded even if you do get a couple of good hits. Oh, and let's not forget that you lose control of the character completely while in VATS so enemies still move and you can easily wind up dead while using it and enemies, even at close range with 95% chance to hit in VATS, will often either move behind cover or VATS will claim high % to hit but blindly fire into obstacles that are not truly in your line of sight.

OP, Fallout is not an FPS. There were various comments after the presentation complaining that BGS has taken it way too far into FPS rather than RPG direction. We will have to see in the final product, of course. However, VATS use needs to be strengthened and emphasized much more so that Fallout's RPG mechanics are emphasized rather than the FPS mechanics. There are plenty of shooters on the market, after all. BGS has tweaked VATS but I want to actually use it in-game. Right now, I think the changes seem to be better, but it also seems like they may have ignored strengthening the RPG aspects while pushing the FPS aspects, and that would be very bad for an RPG. If they don't want the game to be an RPG, then don't call it one and do not market it as one.

As I said, we'll see when it comes out.

Edit:

To be clear, it seems that some players want a CoD experience. However, this is supposed to be an RPG and no RPG should ever depend on player twitch reactions. Role playing means "playing a role" and outcomes must be based on character skill not player twitch ability. The only skill related to player is the skill to choose what the character would do in any given situation. The outcomes of the choices must always be character-based or it is not an RPG because the outcome would be dependent on you, the player, not the character role you are supposed to be playing. There are plenty of FPSes, as I said, so players should not be wanting an RPG to be an FPS when it comes to combat. Of course, this is one reason why so-called "iron sights" is pointless in an RPG, plus the fact that FONV iron sights actually obscured the target with most weapons thus making it even sillier.

One thing people were always going on about VATS being OP in Fallout 3 was the extreme damage reduction you got while in VATS. Technically supposed to make up for the fact your character wasn't dodging while shooting (like a real player could), but it was probably a bit much. I think they also reduced that a good bit in NV.

And that still does not matter when you figure in the drawbacks I mentioned. I suppose it might matter if you play on Easy Mode but most don't do that. Besides, it also very simple to use mods to change the damage reduction in VATS so that it doesn't exist (very stupid due to the drawbacks since that makes it almost suicidal to use) or perhaps 50% or 25% (50% is what I normally use, plus MMM so there are far more enemies than vanilla and there is seldom a chance that you can rely on VATS for an entire encounter even if it didn't have the drawbacks).

To each their own, but it certainly is not OP in any way due to the drawbacks. Even in vanilla, you can still easily die due to multiple enemies and severe limits on using VATS. Well, prior to Level 20 and Grim Reaper's Sprint, anyway.

This is true. And I've been saying the same.

Too bad the game doesn't seem to be going that way (in the light of the current information and gameplay footage).

I always thought that VATS was a way to simulate the turn based combat of FO1 & 2.

I think youre making quick judgments about some of the opinions here. I dont think most people want a CoD experience, they just want better combat. Things like Iron sights (that actually work), more fluid combat, better enemy AI, etc. in NO way make it less of an RPG. Its silly to think we cant have both implemented well.

No, it does go that way as a hybrid action-RPG. There are no true RPGs anymore, and even Morrowind (the closest we've had for decades) was not genuinely "true" due to movement and ranged aiming depending on player skill not character ability. However, even story- and character-driven Japanese RPGs have (mostly) moved to action-RPG hybrids. There are a few exceptions, but even those are strategy-RPG hybrids, not pure RPGs.

Anyone wanting just a true RPG can blame the market, not the companies, because the companies have to follow the market demands as businesses. In fact, this very thread is an indication of the problem companies face. If the market demanded more cerebral games, we'd have far more games like Civilization (i.e., complex games that focus on mental immersion rather than physical action). Movies face the same problem. Studios may want to make more intellectual or dramatic films and still (occasionally) fund such efforts, but the low market ROI and huge ROI on simple action-based stuff like Avengers and other American superhero type films makes it very hard for studios to go in any other direction.

No, I am not rushing to judgement. I am merely making an observation about certain comments/threads that have shown up repeatedly here and elsewhere, including this one by the OP. Specifically, "improving combat" does not mean "improving player twitch reaction combat" better known as "improving FPS combat mechanics", at least not for any RPG. It means improving the mechanics that emphasize character skill, not improving mechanics related to player skill. The latter mechanics should be minimized or eliminated in any RPG or the product is simply not an RPG, that's all. Some players may want a game that is not an RPG, even most players may want that, but in that case the product should not be marketed as an RPG because it clearly isn't one. "Iron sights" is an FPS mechanic, not an RPH mechanic, and thus is not needed in an RPG. The other elements you mention such as better AI or more fluid (i.e., more responsive actions such as reloading and switching weapons or running away) are applicable to RPGs or may be, at least, depending on the context and implementation.

I've seen comments claiming that an RPG requires that a player is free to play themselves in the game. Such comments can be found on videos and threads concerning the voiced PC. However, that viewpoint is exactly the opposite of what an RPG is. I've often offered the anology to acting to clarify what role playing is all about. If anyone auditions for a role in a film or play and attempts to play themselves rather than the role, they will not be offered the part (i.e., they will fail the audition). Likewise, if a player wants to play themselves in a game that claims it is an RPG and the game allows them to do so, even encourages it, then the game has failed to actually fulfill the requirements of an RPG, the first and foremost of which is that players must "play a role" rather than "play themselves".

There are plenty of games where players play themselves and outcomes are based in their skill. These include FPSes, action games, puzzle games, racing games, and many more. There is no need to have RPGs disappear so that players who wish to actually play various roles have no products to enjoy. It would be like acting shifting to only allowing roles for people to play themselves rather than a variety of different personalities.

It is very silly to think that player-based outcomes have anything to do with or should be included in an RPG.

We do not have any genuine RPGs on the market, of course, and that is the entire point I was making (i.e., BGS should take steps to strengthen RPG elements not player-based elements so that such a product is offered rather than following/imitating the many products that already rely on player-based outcomes).