Sorrow said:
Strike for trolling.
No need for these kind of comments.
CVG interviews Pete Hines
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Strike for trolling.
No need for these kind of comments.
LuckyOasis
First time out of the vault
First of all, I apologize for what apparently was an inflamatory post. To be honest though, from my perspective, most of the posts on this board are pretty inflamatory and seem rather close minded. I'm really excited about Fallout 3 and I'm really happy Bethesda is working on it. Reading much of what is posted here really bothers me because I like the direction that Bethesda is taking with Fallout 3. I really think they're doing a good job from what little we have seen so far. The trailer gave me chills.
My least favorite part of Fallout and Fallout 2 was the combat. I actually purchased Fallout because it looked like X-COM: UFO Defense, but with better graphics and a much more interesting story. Obviously, the two franchises are really very different, although the original X:COM was an amazing game in its own way. If you can still find a copy, you should check it out, that game was isometric combat at its very best.
Anyway, I didn't enjoy the combat as much in Fallout because the friendly NPCs would end up shooting either me or each other what seemed to be 25% of the time. Or, I'd be going solo and a group of wild dogs would kill me even though I was wearing combat armor had an automatic shotgun. All in all, I always thought the AI was pretty terrible. I still enjoyed the combat, for the most part, but I enjoyed the story, the humor, the choices, the world, and the characters much more. Furthermore, the story, the humor, the choices, the world and the characters are the things that Bethesda has been saying they are working very hard on trying to recreate in every single interview.
As far as the "not a direct sequel, but a spin-off" argument goes, it sounded to me like Van Buren was going to be more of a spin-off than a direct sequel. In Van Buren the player starts out as a prisoner in jail (just like he/she does in Morrowind and Oblivion). Suddenly, you're out; you're free and you can create whatever type of life you want for yourself outside. That, to me, was the essence of Fallout. You're out of the vault; you're out of the village, and the crazy-messed-up post-apocolyptic world is your oyster. Bethesda has been making games with a similar feel and a different setting for decades.
Have you all played Morrowind and Oblivion? I know from reading a lot of the posts on here how you all feel about those two games, but I feel like a lot of you are missing out on some of the most amazing moments in gaming by not giving them a chance. In Morrowind, you can freaking fly. You can jump from one end of the island to the other if you want. You can turn into a werewolf. To finish the main quest you have to climb a mountain and kill a lot of vampires. The only problem with the game, in my opinion, was that the combat was kind of broken. A lot of other people felt the same way and let Bethesda know it. In response, Oblivion was very combat oriented although it lacked some of the depth that Morrowind offered.
I'm a big supporter of Bethesda, but I am in no way associated with them. I just really like Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games, and I also happen to really like Fallout. I wish more of the people here would be willing to give Bethesda a chance and wait to play the game we're lucky to be getting at all.
My least favorite part of Fallout and Fallout 2 was the combat. I actually purchased Fallout because it looked like X-COM: UFO Defense, but with better graphics and a much more interesting story. Obviously, the two franchises are really very different, although the original X:COM was an amazing game in its own way. If you can still find a copy, you should check it out, that game was isometric combat at its very best.
Anyway, I didn't enjoy the combat as much in Fallout because the friendly NPCs would end up shooting either me or each other what seemed to be 25% of the time. Or, I'd be going solo and a group of wild dogs would kill me even though I was wearing combat armor had an automatic shotgun. All in all, I always thought the AI was pretty terrible. I still enjoyed the combat, for the most part, but I enjoyed the story, the humor, the choices, the world, and the characters much more. Furthermore, the story, the humor, the choices, the world and the characters are the things that Bethesda has been saying they are working very hard on trying to recreate in every single interview.
As far as the "not a direct sequel, but a spin-off" argument goes, it sounded to me like Van Buren was going to be more of a spin-off than a direct sequel. In Van Buren the player starts out as a prisoner in jail (just like he/she does in Morrowind and Oblivion). Suddenly, you're out; you're free and you can create whatever type of life you want for yourself outside. That, to me, was the essence of Fallout. You're out of the vault; you're out of the village, and the crazy-messed-up post-apocolyptic world is your oyster. Bethesda has been making games with a similar feel and a different setting for decades.
Have you all played Morrowind and Oblivion? I know from reading a lot of the posts on here how you all feel about those two games, but I feel like a lot of you are missing out on some of the most amazing moments in gaming by not giving them a chance. In Morrowind, you can freaking fly. You can jump from one end of the island to the other if you want. You can turn into a werewolf. To finish the main quest you have to climb a mountain and kill a lot of vampires. The only problem with the game, in my opinion, was that the combat was kind of broken. A lot of other people felt the same way and let Bethesda know it. In response, Oblivion was very combat oriented although it lacked some of the depth that Morrowind offered.
I'm a big supporter of Bethesda, but I am in no way associated with them. I just really like Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games, and I also happen to really like Fallout. I wish more of the people here would be willing to give Bethesda a chance and wait to play the game we're lucky to be getting at all.
LuckyOasis said:
A word of advice: it's usually not a good idea to post emotionally if you're pissed off by people's opinions. Because that's what this paragraph seems to indicate, you're excited, check out these forums, see we're not excited and that pisses you off. You should always be careful about what you post when someone's opinion bothers you.
LuckyOasis said:
Bethesda makes rogue-like RPGs, Fallout is not a rogue-like.
This is why you were advised to read up, because this post of yours makes little sense.
Van Buren is something that would have had similar mechanics, graphics, storyline structure, quest structure, dialogue, etc.
Morrowind/Oblivion, as rogue-likes, share with Fallout the sense of go anywhere do anything, but otherwise the two share nothing.
LuckyOasis said:
Yes, well-produced roguelikes. But roguelikes aren't my genre, and I found both games likeable but not great. Good, but not excellent.
But personal taste don't factor into it. It doesn't matter how much I like the TES games, that doesn't mean Fallout should become a TES game. If I love Portal, should that mean Fallout should adapt Portal's mechanics? Fallout 3 should be designed from its own mechanics, not from some other game's no matter how much you or I like it. If we keep on adapting games to other games like that we'll end up with a single genre, the RPGRTSFPSSims.
TwinkieGorilla
This ghoul has seen it all
...
Neamos said:
RfaS and PH, take your argument to PMs or somewhere else, this is not the place to continue something that started in another forum.
LuckyOasis said:
It was not perfect, i'll agree, but it could have certainly been refined and perfected. I quietly hoped that's exactly what would happen in Fallout 3... instead, the turn-based concept was completely rejected and replaced with your typical real time combat. With point-dependant pause. To blow heads more efficiently.
Also, situations like you describe say nothing about the quality, or lack of thereof, of the combat system. The first situation was a bug in the AI, the second, well, shit happens. You think you'd have bigger chances of survival in that situation if the game had real-time combat? You probably wouldn't be able to fire more then a single shot before they'd eat you up.
LuckyOasis said:
They lie. Do your homework. See the screens. Remember how things looked in Fallout 1 & 2. Read the interviews.
I'm sorry to say, but you had fallen straight into their hype trap.
LuckyOasis said:
Wrong. Van Buren was meant to be a direct continuation of the series, both, canon wise, and gameplay wise. Check out the tech demo and design documents and see for yourself.
LuckyOasis said:
Played both. Morrowind was fine. Despite the overall freedom, it lacked serious choice and consequence which would help define the character i'm trying to roleplay more clearly, but i enjoyed my runs through it (i've finished it around five times, i think). One thing that really helped were the tons of mods made by fans, some are top class and beat the original game content.
Oblivion was horrible.
I wouldn't say that either game offers "amazing gaming moments", really, neither of them offered anything truly grand. Good looking rogue-likes, with the former not being dumbed down enough to make it nigh-unplayable like the latter.
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Is there anything official on that being a bug and not intentional? If it was a bug you'd think that there would of been more of an attempt to fix it by the second game.Madbringer said:
whirlingdervish
Brahmin Cavalry Commander
So, I take it that you would feel lucky to get a big box full of dog shit wrapped in shiny paper for christmas, when you really wanted a puppy for 12 months..
We aren't lucky to be getting a third crappy spinoff of Fallout.
It's not luck at all. It's more along the lines of being cursed.
I would rather have nothing whatsoever, than have some loose translation of a Fallout game that's been turned into an FPP hacknslash action rpg, foisted upon me with lies that it's better than the original.
for the record: I stopped caring about your opinion, right about the time you went all beth-apologist on us, after failing to do any research at all.
requiem_for_a_starfury said:
Maybe it's not as much as a bug but a shortcoming of the AI. It doesn't seem to care whether the PC is in it's line of fire (in F2 you could at least give orders that helped a little).
It doesn't even want to move to have a clear line of fire to the intended target. (Ie, if it can shoot, it will shoot, regardless of who is in the way).
LuckyOasis
First time out of the vault
Reasons we should be happy Bethesda is changing the combat system:
[1] In the original two games you can see where almost all of the enemies are all almost all of the time. Only rarely would you have to actually open a door to discover what was on the other side of a wall. Or, you could simply enter the combat mode to get green, yellow, or red outlines of every living thing on the map.
It would be so much better to sneak through the toxic caves without knowing where all of the geckos were located. It would be much more fun to tackle the Enclave base knowing the place was loaded to the brim with soldiers but not knowing exactly where they were. My favorite part of the oil rig was one of the few times you had the opportunity to open a door and wander into a room only to find the place packed with guys wearing Mark 2 Power Armor... and then being afraid to move because I thought they should all be attacking me. That sort of thing shouldn't be such a diamond in the rough when you're playing an RPG, it should happen all of the time. Especially when you're role-playing a character who is really a fish out of water; a stanger in a strange land.
[2] The enemy AI seemed to only have three options when it came to tactics in the first two games. They would run straight towards you, run away from you, or fire a weapon from a distance. Nobody ever took cover (unless they were running away from you, but then they probably wouldn't do much more than wait for you to kill them). Most of the battles involved a group of people standing in some sort of circular clump firing guns at each other and hitting their friends almost as often as their enemies.
When I heard that Fallout 3 will require the player to find cover and wait while VATs regenerated, I was ecstatic. I think that kind of combat sounds to be much more immersive and enjoyable.
[3] There was very little accounting for the position of the player in the battle. Everything happened on the same plane. One of the best tactical decisions you could make would be to stand on the other side of a doorway and wait for the inevitable log jam of bad guys so you could pick them off one at a time.
Have you all ever played the Jagged Alliance games? I think you would like them. Their combat system was leaps and bounds ahead of Fallout. Third-person isometric stuff, but you could actually climb on top of buildings to really put your sniper rifle to use. You could hide behind rocks and cars and statues for cover. Also, the time of day had an effect on your enemies. If you attacked at night when most people were sleeping, they would wake up and be a bit more sluggish than during the day. Moving the game into the third dimension opens up a world of possibilities for tactical combat decisions. Now, we won't have to stand in a big group firing guns at everyone all at the same time. We'll be able to take cover behind a bombed-out bus and surprise a super-mutant with a shotgun blast to the face when he comes around the corner.
[4] The change in perspective has the potential to create a much more exciting experience. I'm excited to sneak through the abandoned sub-way system and maybe see some angular death-claw like shape scurry from shadow to shadow up ahead of me... giving me the feeling that I'm not the hunter but the hunted.
All in all, Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't even have the best turn-based isometric combat of their time. X-COM (which came before Fallout) and Jagged Alliance (I think both were released after Fallout 2) had far better turn-based combat systems, but at the end of the day Fallout and Fallout 2 remain two of my favorite games. Not because of their combat system (which I am happy will not be returning), but because of the world in which they take place and the style of the experience.
I don't mind the small changes to how the mutants, vault, vault-suit, and brotherhood look. Bethesda seems to be getting the feeling of the experience spot on, and definitely made the right choice to change the combat system.
[1] In the original two games you can see where almost all of the enemies are all almost all of the time. Only rarely would you have to actually open a door to discover what was on the other side of a wall. Or, you could simply enter the combat mode to get green, yellow, or red outlines of every living thing on the map.
It would be so much better to sneak through the toxic caves without knowing where all of the geckos were located. It would be much more fun to tackle the Enclave base knowing the place was loaded to the brim with soldiers but not knowing exactly where they were. My favorite part of the oil rig was one of the few times you had the opportunity to open a door and wander into a room only to find the place packed with guys wearing Mark 2 Power Armor... and then being afraid to move because I thought they should all be attacking me. That sort of thing shouldn't be such a diamond in the rough when you're playing an RPG, it should happen all of the time. Especially when you're role-playing a character who is really a fish out of water; a stanger in a strange land.
[2] The enemy AI seemed to only have three options when it came to tactics in the first two games. They would run straight towards you, run away from you, or fire a weapon from a distance. Nobody ever took cover (unless they were running away from you, but then they probably wouldn't do much more than wait for you to kill them). Most of the battles involved a group of people standing in some sort of circular clump firing guns at each other and hitting their friends almost as often as their enemies.
When I heard that Fallout 3 will require the player to find cover and wait while VATs regenerated, I was ecstatic. I think that kind of combat sounds to be much more immersive and enjoyable.
[3] There was very little accounting for the position of the player in the battle. Everything happened on the same plane. One of the best tactical decisions you could make would be to stand on the other side of a doorway and wait for the inevitable log jam of bad guys so you could pick them off one at a time.
Have you all ever played the Jagged Alliance games? I think you would like them. Their combat system was leaps and bounds ahead of Fallout. Third-person isometric stuff, but you could actually climb on top of buildings to really put your sniper rifle to use. You could hide behind rocks and cars and statues for cover. Also, the time of day had an effect on your enemies. If you attacked at night when most people were sleeping, they would wake up and be a bit more sluggish than during the day. Moving the game into the third dimension opens up a world of possibilities for tactical combat decisions. Now, we won't have to stand in a big group firing guns at everyone all at the same time. We'll be able to take cover behind a bombed-out bus and surprise a super-mutant with a shotgun blast to the face when he comes around the corner.
[4] The change in perspective has the potential to create a much more exciting experience. I'm excited to sneak through the abandoned sub-way system and maybe see some angular death-claw like shape scurry from shadow to shadow up ahead of me... giving me the feeling that I'm not the hunter but the hunted.
All in all, Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't even have the best turn-based isometric combat of their time. X-COM (which came before Fallout) and Jagged Alliance (I think both were released after Fallout 2) had far better turn-based combat systems, but at the end of the day Fallout and Fallout 2 remain two of my favorite games. Not because of their combat system (which I am happy will not be returning), but because of the world in which they take place and the style of the experience.
I don't mind the small changes to how the mutants, vault, vault-suit, and brotherhood look. Bethesda seems to be getting the feeling of the experience spot on, and definitely made the right choice to change the combat system.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
:sigh: Wrong. Turn Based combat can (and should) have fields of vision and that kind of things. FOT had it, Silent Storm has it too...LuckyOasis said:
:sigh: Wrong. Turn Based AI is inherently better than real time AI, for the simple fact that turn based AI has all the virtual memory dedicated to one single character at a time while real time AI must have the virtual memory shared by all characters at the same time. Since there often are 10+ characters in combat, we can say that real time AI is over ten times worse than its turn based counterpart. Of course, you have to program it right, but that's another issue.LuckyOasis said:
:sigh: Wrong. Again (and forgetting that it happens even more often in real time games) it is perfectly possible to erase that exploit/issue fallout's combat system had in a turn based combat system. Just improve the AI and make things work.LuckyOasis said:
First person exploration is a nice thing. I think most fans complain about the perspective in combat though. First person in exploration is nice, and I believe it should always be there (as an optional perspective even).LuckyOasis said:
Sure. Where's my point and click tactical role-playing game? I don't see any...LuckyOasis said:
:sigh:
LuckyOasis,
Do you like hearing or reading from pissed off and angry people?
Do you like hearing or reading from pissed off and angry people?
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I'm not pissed off.
LuckyOasis
First time out of the vault
The Dutch Ghost said:
Why do you feel pissed off and angry because I think Fallout 3 looks great and because I am really happy with the changes being made to the franchise? I loved the original games, but I went back and played both of them over the summer realized how limited they are in some ways. I think Bethesda is changing the franchise for the better.
I know Fallout and Fallout 2 are very special to a lot of people, myself included, but I don't think they are perfect games by any means. There are areas that needed improvement, and I'm happy that Bethesda is making a few big changes.
I'm not trying to make anybody here angry, I'm just trying to let you all know that not everybody feels the way you do about Bethesda and what they are trying to accomplish with Fallout 3.
Whatever the limitations of real-time AI might be, turn-based AI certainly wasn't all that intelligent in Fallout, and was just a little better in Fallout 2. I still loved the games, though. Furthermore, have you all played Halo 3's campaign on Legendary? There are dozens of enemies all acting really, really intelligently.
I don't want Fallout 3 to be a first-person shooter, but I don't think you should sell real-time AI as short as you are. If I throw a grenade into a group of super mutants, I would rather see them all dive out of the way at the same time rather than watch them take turns slowly ambling of the way while I patiently watch and wait for the grenade to detonate and Sulik pretends to change the ammo in his sub-machine gun again. And we're not talking about lots and lots of algorithms here. Just one really: Grenade = dive out of the way. In Fallout 2, the NPCs couldn't even get it through their heads to avoid the green, radio-active goo lying around everywhere.
Stay tuned for my in-depth argument for why turn-based combat and real-time-with-pause combat are essentially exactly the same thing.
Moving Target
Mildly Dipped
Ok, so...what about the action points?
Real-time negates it, and RTwP makes it almost totally useless.
And as a slight aside- that's nice you're worked up (in a good way) about Fallout 3, but, honsestly, Beth is screwing up pretty badly. Outside of the look of some elements (new PipBoy, Vault 101) it's an extremely different game (BoS, supermutants, VATS, exploding cars, Fatman, etc, etc.)
Sure, you might think we're all nuts and want a FO2 clone....which is really the crux of your argument, especially as NPC AI is concerned... but we don't. We want a game true to the setting and original purpose of the Fallout games (retro turn-based gaming based on P&P RPGs, back when FPSs were dominating the market) and we're understandably upset when Bethsoft, even given the almost three years of development they've been using, aren't even close to making a game like Fallout 1 or 2.
Arguments about the inferiority of AI to other games are moot, as we're not concerned with a copy of the technology that MADE FO 1/2, but are seeing the utter lack of respect and care that Bethsoft has for the Fallout franchise and their fans.
Real-time negates it, and RTwP makes it almost totally useless.
And as a slight aside- that's nice you're worked up (in a good way) about Fallout 3, but, honsestly, Beth is screwing up pretty badly. Outside of the look of some elements (new PipBoy, Vault 101) it's an extremely different game (BoS, supermutants, VATS, exploding cars, Fatman, etc, etc.)
Sure, you might think we're all nuts and want a FO2 clone....which is really the crux of your argument, especially as NPC AI is concerned... but we don't. We want a game true to the setting and original purpose of the Fallout games (retro turn-based gaming based on P&P RPGs, back when FPSs were dominating the market) and we're understandably upset when Bethsoft, even given the almost three years of development they've been using, aren't even close to making a game like Fallout 1 or 2.
Arguments about the inferiority of AI to other games are moot, as we're not concerned with a copy of the technology that MADE FO 1/2, but are seeing the utter lack of respect and care that Bethsoft has for the Fallout franchise and their fans.
* sigh *
I am really really starting to get tired of these posts, of how people proclaim that Bethesda is 'evolving'and improving Fallout by the minute.
You say in a different tone but the message is still the same, basically Bethesda are improving Fallout by getting rid of the old and clunky gameplay and replacing it with a gameplay they know best and will 'appeal to all'.
But there are many things Bethesda doesn't get, a whole list of things.
I am tired, it is late here, and I really am not in the mood of having the sort of arguement again people are having since Bethesda got the Fallout licence and told people that they were going to do what they know best.
To be honest, I am sick and tired that a lot of things that I used to like have to change, be improved or re invented in order to appeal to the mass audience.
So far things have only become more simpler and stupid instead of the glorious rebirth that promises to appeal to both the old fans and a whole new generation.
I am more and more getting the idea that it might be better that we destroy the things we liked so much, the books, the games, anything media related before the moment comes that we have to pass it on.
Put out the flame and make sure that it can never be turned on again.
And no, turn based and Real Time with Pauze are not the same thing, you can argue it all you want but you will get is more powerful arguements back.
Hi Morbus,
I didn't really think that, more that some of the members of the board like you are really getting fed up with this.
I am really really starting to get tired of these posts, of how people proclaim that Bethesda is 'evolving'and improving Fallout by the minute.
You say in a different tone but the message is still the same, basically Bethesda are improving Fallout by getting rid of the old and clunky gameplay and replacing it with a gameplay they know best and will 'appeal to all'.
But there are many things Bethesda doesn't get, a whole list of things.
I am tired, it is late here, and I really am not in the mood of having the sort of arguement again people are having since Bethesda got the Fallout licence and told people that they were going to do what they know best.
To be honest, I am sick and tired that a lot of things that I used to like have to change, be improved or re invented in order to appeal to the mass audience.
So far things have only become more simpler and stupid instead of the glorious rebirth that promises to appeal to both the old fans and a whole new generation.
I am more and more getting the idea that it might be better that we destroy the things we liked so much, the books, the games, anything media related before the moment comes that we have to pass it on.
Put out the flame and make sure that it can never be turned on again.
And no, turn based and Real Time with Pauze are not the same thing, you can argue it all you want but you will get is more powerful arguements back.
Hi Morbus,
I didn't really think that, more that some of the members of the board like you are really getting fed up with this.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I know you didn't think that, I was just erasing possible doubts about my state of mindThe Dutch Ghost said:
Still, I've been fed up with this for a long time, enough time to learn not everyone knows the basics of game design and stuff like that. Yeah, because saying real time is evolution shows, among other things, but above all else, a complete and utter lack of understanding about game design. That and the stats and shit. I'm fed up too, I'm fed up that everyone (mostly) is just so freaking retarded that they don't even understand what a RPG is, which makes it possible for us to see people saying Final Fantasy and Diablo are RPG's, and all their clones and degenerate crap, it's no wonder they think first person real time is the evolution of the era and whatever, and it's no wonder too that people like old-school RPG fans are fed up with this, with the industry, with the players (this kind of players), with the "journalists".The other day I got a guy saying that Mask of the Betrayer was not a good game because the first two hours were not "captivating" enough. I mean, what the hell? And then he said nowadays' games cannot suffer having "uncaptivating" first levels/areas/missions lest them loose their players. No, it's not nowadays' games in general, it's nowadays' lamestream action shiny games that are made for kids drolling over they shiny little xbrick about how the grapheex are graet and how the gmae rulz and goty and whatever. Games that are made for casual players with short attention span that cannot bother reading something for more than two minutes (in the best case scenario) that cannot suffer having boring first missions. RPG's like Mask of the Betrayer are not like those stupid mindless games. And this is what the guy didn't understand, and what most people don't understand. Games don't need to be first person action shiny immersive experiences to be good. But people think they do and I'm fed up.
I'm just not pissed off
Mord_Sith
Mildly Dipped
So LuckyOasis, you believe wholeheartedly that a knightly BoS can work, or that after the entire world was bombed to hell there would be anything explosive left in derelict vehicles that hadn't been salvaged already?
By the way, when containment is lost in a nuclear reactor, it doesn't explode, it fakking melts and lets off intensely irradiated particles, if this is about 50 years then those cars, even though they had survived, without maintenance would have lost containment in a decade or so.
Wikipedia
There's the physics of it, exploding cars are not possible as they are POWERED by a micro-nuclear reactor, not a bloody nuke!
As for the BoS, east coast my arse, those guys wouldn't leave their hole unless they thought they could find a wealth of technology outside! Not to mention the fact that the BoS are not wasteland police, hell they're probably as bad as raiders when they want something from an unenlightened person!
For them to travel, on FOOT across the continent, en-mass is ridiculous to say the least, it's not like they have a motor pool or something like that, I'm surprised the highway-man wasn't stolen from you at the first chance any of the cities got!
Any nuclear weapon or device without meticulous care would degrade and begin to irradiate after an extended period of time, the atom bomb in the middle of megatonne would have killed everyone there by now anyways due to the core degrading the containment, a nuke, once it has been armed, or even once it's removed from containment to deployment, has no method of cooling itself, so if it isn't detonated within a reasonable amount of time, it will begin to destroy the housing it is in!
My problem is not with the perspective, my problem is with the glaring holes in the canon and general storyline, Oblivious sucked for storyline, if you want to maul a mudcrab go ahead, but aside from bash & bang against every foe and monstrosity in the land, it has no real storyline, it's as stale sawdust!
Ooh, close the portals, ooh join a guild, ooh do odd jobs, ooh ahh trees! Give me a blasted break, that game was a joke and I would trade graphics in any day for a damn good story.
Beth is good at bloom and doom, nothing else, and honestly, I'd rather see Fallout's future in the hands of Caen than beth because at least we could dream that Van Buren could be picked up again and it's gfx be re-vamped a bit but otherwise hand off a damn good story.
If your only complaint is about AI then I will agree with you on that point, a game made when the mainstay was 4-586's could possibly have had a better friendly fire AI, but they didn't, something to tack up on the to do list for the next one, if there ever would be a next one.
By the way, when containment is lost in a nuclear reactor, it doesn't explode, it fakking melts and lets off intensely irradiated particles, if this is about 50 years then those cars, even though they had survived, without maintenance would have lost containment in a decade or so.
Wikipedia
There's the physics of it, exploding cars are not possible as they are POWERED by a micro-nuclear reactor, not a bloody nuke!
As for the BoS, east coast my arse, those guys wouldn't leave their hole unless they thought they could find a wealth of technology outside! Not to mention the fact that the BoS are not wasteland police, hell they're probably as bad as raiders when they want something from an unenlightened person!
For them to travel, on FOOT across the continent, en-mass is ridiculous to say the least, it's not like they have a motor pool or something like that, I'm surprised the highway-man wasn't stolen from you at the first chance any of the cities got!
Any nuclear weapon or device without meticulous care would degrade and begin to irradiate after an extended period of time, the atom bomb in the middle of megatonne would have killed everyone there by now anyways due to the core degrading the containment, a nuke, once it has been armed, or even once it's removed from containment to deployment, has no method of cooling itself, so if it isn't detonated within a reasonable amount of time, it will begin to destroy the housing it is in!
My problem is not with the perspective, my problem is with the glaring holes in the canon and general storyline, Oblivious sucked for storyline, if you want to maul a mudcrab go ahead, but aside from bash & bang against every foe and monstrosity in the land, it has no real storyline, it's as stale sawdust!
Ooh, close the portals, ooh join a guild, ooh do odd jobs, ooh ahh trees! Give me a blasted break, that game was a joke and I would trade graphics in any day for a damn good story.
Beth is good at bloom and doom, nothing else, and honestly, I'd rather see Fallout's future in the hands of Caen than beth because at least we could dream that Van Buren could be picked up again and it's gfx be re-vamped a bit but otherwise hand off a damn good story.
If your only complaint is about AI then I will agree with you on that point, a game made when the mainstay was 4-586's could possibly have had a better friendly fire AI, but they didn't, something to tack up on the to do list for the next one, if there ever would be a next one.
It seems your grievances with the combat system are mostly based on the shoddy combat AI and the 2D no-climbing-for-you interface.LuckyOasis said:
You point to Jagged Alliance as a series that managed to do better.
With this in mind, then why do you think changing the combat system entirely will be better?
You've seen it yourself in JA: It's possible to do better with similar combat mechanics.
Let's take into account the advances made in the years between these games and now, throw in some 3D birdie-perspective or something along those lines for good effect (3D FPP with birdie in combat?), and Fallout 3 (TB) is made today.
The horrible AI and bugs are mostly polished away and you can climb/duck all you want.
No more beating around the bush, here it is:
Turn based is purely a design choice, as is RTwP.
You have listed a bunch of complaints that can easily be blamed on a lack of development funds, lazy/inexperienced AI devs, deadlines and/or technical limitations.
So I ask again: How the hell did you reach the conclusion that throwing turn-based combat out the window would be an excellent idea?
As has been pointed out, Lucky Oasis, your list of gripes has zilch to do with the combat being turn-based, besides your stated dislike of watching people take turns. I don't think you'll find anyone who'll say the NPC AI in the original Fallouts was absolutely top-notch and couldn't possibly be improved upon.
1) Having to have line of sight to see things is perfectly possible in a turn-based system. See Fallout Tactics.
2) The simple AI routines have nothing at all to do with the combat being turn-based. Nowadays, with good programming, AI in a turn-based environment could be vastly superior to anything seen in a real-time game.
3) Yeah, having elevations and such is nice, and again, has nothing to do with turn-based combat. Again, see Fallout Tactics.
4) I don't really get how it's less exciting to see something scurrying around in the dark from a different perspective. RE4 did it for me just fine using an over-the-shoulder viewpoint.
1) Having to have line of sight to see things is perfectly possible in a turn-based system. See Fallout Tactics.
2) The simple AI routines have nothing at all to do with the combat being turn-based. Nowadays, with good programming, AI in a turn-based environment could be vastly superior to anything seen in a real-time game.
3) Yeah, having elevations and such is nice, and again, has nothing to do with turn-based combat. Again, see Fallout Tactics.
4) I don't really get how it's less exciting to see something scurrying around in the dark from a different perspective. RE4 did it for me just fine using an over-the-shoulder viewpoint.
Yeah, sure... it's not like Fallout was, you know, intended to be an counter-point to the plethora of real-time combat games that were being developed at the time, and now there's absolute ass-tons of them. There's plenty of other games you can play for your real-time combat kicks. Why does Fallout have to turn into yet another one? It's just plain dumb.