I actually gave it the benefit of doubt and assumed that they'd try to make it faithful to the original Fallout series. And I was proven wrong when the details started to be revealed.

Even most NMA admins actually did have a "wait and see" stance, which is part of why Rosh left the NMA staff.

"Hard" as opposed to "soft".

As in, having a meaningful effect on gameplay as opposed to not?

I'm as "die-hard" a veteran Fallout fan, and I'd love to see both of those games, actually. Assuming it was a good game that could stand on it's own and didn't rely on the Fallout moniker to cover up poor game design. (And so long as it wasn't called Fallout 4... )

Yes, it could be more meaningful than it is now, I agree. But as I said, I don't think it's the "lifeblood" of Fallout.

Thank God they had respect for the series.

Those are game mechanics in my book ~Fallout is not only about combat. Its the sum of its parts ~actually more than the sum. Technically I'd rate Arcanum a better Fallout sequel than any game in the franchise after F2. Mulch it over for a while and you'll see why.

Agreed.


Tim Cain & Chris Avalone and Leonard Boyarski? Didn't Leonard say something to the effect that it was like having an Ex wife that would sell off his kids?
~No... I guess you mean those [here] that plainly saw what to expect and were ticked off (before it was out), and then saw every single thing that ticked them off come to pass.

Fallout 3 was designed as a "do anything", "go anywhere" time vampire ~but the series proper, was not so cavalier about forgiveness and non binding choices. The series was not an APOC simulator...Fallout 3 is ~and unfortunately... if you remove all but the animal NPC's... it seems a damn good one IMO. ~but that by itself would never live up to the name.

Yeah, I agree. Fallout (the Series) is definitely about more than just combat. And certainly, the way the individual pieces go together makes a difference too - so more than the sum of the parts is something I'd also agree with. It's just that the items I listed are the ones that really stand out in my mind - and I'm of the opinion that Fallout 3 hits those targets very well. It's definitely a different flavor than the previous games - and not just due to the RT/FP vs TB/ISO thing - but, for me, Fallout 3 really does reflect the spirit of the franchise.

For me... the spirit of the franchise is the brutally double edged nature of the game and how it treats all things in it... The is not shown in Fallout 3 IMO.

• The PC is the only one to need power armor training
  
• the PC skills seem to serve as attenuating handicaps instead of proficiency
  
• the player is now limited to a paltry cone of view in which to see the opponents, but the opponent can come gunning at the PC from a half mile away
  
• VATS is screwed up because unlike the aimed shot in the first three games, it gauges the % to hit based on proximity to the shooter instead of by zone... resulting in situations where its easier to shoot the head than the leg

I still find it humorous that a lot of folks will sometimes bring up how silly it seems to them that in F1, the combat just seemed to be shoot, shoot, ~till they fall dead or you get killed, and ignore the fact that the same thing goes on (without the misunderstanding) in regular Fallout 3 fights where raiders routinely fire their guns, and reload 'til they fall dead from injuries.

Arcanum seems the better sequel to me. (and it is equally not one either).

Personally, I don't think that voice acting contributes anything to immersion. I thought that Fallout and Fallout 2 were far more immersive than Fallout 3 because they had deeper gameplay where your choices actually had a consequences that mattered. In Fallout 3 you can shoot up all of Megaton, and the only effect will be karma loss, a couple lost quest opportunities, and a slight EXP boost. No one else in the game world will react to you any differently unless you shifted from neutral or good, to evil from your genocidal rampage. Even then the change will be minor and might as well be considered non-existent. If anything, I think full voice acting hurts immersion. Due to size constraints, dialog has to be trimmed down making NPC interactions, and storylines often feel empty and soulless. Honestly, compare Morrowind which had lengthy and detailed character interactions in its main quest, and then look at Oblivion which has full voice acting but only one to two sentences from NPCs.

I can certainly understand your position, but I'm afraid that I can't agree with it.

That is true - I find myself using a bit more tactics in the older Fallout games than in this one. It might be because I'm easily overwhelmed in shooter-type games, but in Fallout 3 I'm mostly moving into a decent range and firing away at the enemy until they drop dead (and using VATS at every opportunity.) It's not like I'm really make much use of cover (because of the willy-nilly way in which the NPCs run around - I have enough trouble hitting anyone if I'm standing still, much less if I complicate matters by trying to worry about moving in and out of cover.)

Whereas in the previous games, I had many more options to think about - how to best use my limited AP points per turn to maximize my damage per round ratio, as well as placing myself in a position where I would most likely survive until my next round, etc. A character with a high AP had a great advantage in melee combat, as they could "lead" enemies into range, make an attack, and then back up to a point where the enemy was wasting all their APs in moving back into range; and then wouldn't have enough left over to make an attack once they got there.

This might just come down to a difference in playstyle, though. I have a lot more experience with turn-based games, so I have a variety of strategies at my disposal in those situations. A player with more experience in shooter games might likely have an easier time coming up with effective strategies that make a difference in Fallout 3, than I have. They're probably not worrying as much about simply keeping the cross-hairs, which could free them up to thinking in a more tactical manner within the bounds of the real-time mechanics.

If you finish the 'Blood Ties' quest the evil way, Lucy West will hate you; if you blow up Megaton, Megaton survivors will try to kill you. Also, if you're evil you can't take certain followers - and NPCs won't greet you with "I'm glad there're still good ppl in the world", etc. This doesn't seem that minor to me, at least not minor compared to the bulk of RPGs out there.


But neither is Fallout 3 solely about combat. Either way, is it possible to finish Fallout 1/2 without combat?

Anyway, I'll play both Fallout 1 & 2 soon to see what the fuzz is about.

As for strategy, I'm replaying FO1 now, and found it fun to plan my actions well enough in order for Kenji to kill Killian and survive, but without my direct involvement in the combat, so that I get the reward from Gizmo, but the guards don't attack me. Much more fun and much more thinking than in any of the fights I had in FO3.



Yes. Or at least without you being actively involved in the combat, as FO2 does have a mandatory combat that you can have other people to do for you.

I think it does. Personally, I use cover all the time. My primary method of attack is VATS-ing with Ol' Painless, so I go for cover to regain AP a lot. My other primary method of attack is to unload Spiked Knuckles on a shooter while standing in his Dead Zone. This only works if you can corner them, or atleast back them into a wall. When running around outside, I make all sorts of use of the various rocks and things that Giant Radscorpions can't climb - and I do the ring around the boulder thing, trying to keep obstacles between me and the Yao Gaoi. For me, terrain and obstacles have huge tactical implications in FO3 - and it's often quite challenging to figure out which method of attack might work best in any situation. I think FO3 actually does a pretty good job at making tactically considerations a part of the game.

That said, as Ausir mentioned earlier - the enemies in this game are "easy" enough that you don't need to do any of this. Between stimpack abuse, the sheer Chuck-Norris-ness of the player character and the ability to adjust enemy hit points on the fly (via Difficulty Level), good tactics are very rarely (if ever) required.

From what I hear it is, I've never actually done it. There are some side quests you can't do without combat (IE The Deathclaw side quest in the Boneyard), but I think it's possible to finish the main quest of at least the original Fallout without fighting anyone. If you invest a lot of skill points into sneak, at least.

You can do it without investing a single point in sneak in FO1. Not easy, but doable.

What about the Glowing Ones guarding the Vault that contains the Waterchip? They attack you on sight no matter what.

I'd say that 'you don't need to do any of this' once you have high enough skills, enough perks, medkits/chems and 'uber' weapons... in the beginning of the game things are not so easy. Right after exiting the Vault I always go to the viaduct just north of Vault 101 and for surviving the raiders there one needs cover at least... and Talon Company Mercs at early levels are not 'easy' either.

I'd venture to say that for the majority of RPGs the beginning of the game is difficult as at low levels you're a pansy, but once you have a moderate level and nifty equipment the game's cake. Of course, due to Bethesda's open-endedness one can get 'uber' equipment very early, but this is entirely the player's choice.

Is Fallout 1/2 a difficult game once your character can wear 'power armor'? I read in related threads that apparently this armor makes one 'a walking tank'.

You don't have to get the water chip to finish the game. And there's always good old running.



I'd say that, unlike FO3, Enclave patrols in FO2 are often deadly even to high-level, power-armored players.

FO2:
Well, PA is pretty darn hard to get. You're not coming fresh out of the Temple of Trials and getting it in the next 20 minutes as is the case in FO3 - I ran into a dead Outcast crew right next to Megaton once.(unless of course you do a speed run). You're not required to be trained to wear PA... But it'svery hard to get one, and, a long way away.

Let's just say that as far as armor and weapons are concerned, you'll be praising the leather jacket, drooling over the rusty Metal armor... and dreaming of Combat Armor for a long long time. And the ordinary pistol and one-shot rifle would be a high valued thing for you.



I second that. The ordinary 3-person enclave patrol is a major challenge. Their armor is the best in the game, and their weaponry is superb.
A 20 lvl char packing the YK, with Sulik (caseless SMG), Vic + Cassidy (Gauss rifles), Myron (Gauss pistol), wearing Enclave PA, and having the others have PAs/Combat Armor MK2 as the minimum would from time to time loose either himself or a follower in such an encounter.
Basically, the "OMG Enclave! And they've got THEIR power armor! We're doomed, doomed I tells ya" vibe of the BoS in FO3 is a very acurate description of the FO2 state of the Enclave.

Of course, someone is bound to say that you can get the PA straight away by running to Navarro, but it's something that requires prior knowledge of the game, not something anyone ever did on his first playthrough.



Unfortunately, their actual power in-game isn't.

Whether it's the "lifeblood" or not, I prefer to discuss whether or not it works in the context of role-playing games in general. Although I love Fallout 1/2, I don't happen to be one of those Fallout "purists" that is upset with divergence from the original games. My problem with the SPECIAL system in Fallout 3 isn't that it's different, it's that I don't find it very satisfying as a role-player. It wouldn't matter if Fallout 3 was a Fallout game or not, it's just a bit of a superficial system IMO. :shrug:

And I find it interesting that folks could actually compare the quality of combat in FO1 with the quality of combat in FO3 with a straight face. There is more to do in FO3 then just stand there and shoot, like in FO1.

And yet, for all that, you still can't get an aimed shot at the eyes in FO3.

No, but the head is just as good.