Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
No way mang, Halo was the first fps AND it revolutionized the genre all others are just ripoffs 
Do you think it's perfectly okay to dismiss Fallout 3...
- Thread starter Quoth
- Start date
Personaly I loved F3, it made me replay the old ones and appreciate them even more. Thats a big bang for my buck. Hell after F3 New Vegas felt like a revelation.
F3 had its moments for me tho. I have a strange love with that supermarket Moira sends one to.
Fighting against raiders for some crap in an old supermarket was perfect in a Fallout sense.
But yes, dismiss it even F-Tactics wipes the floor with it.
F3 had its moments for me tho. I have a strange love with that supermarket Moira sends one to.
Fighting against raiders for some crap in an old supermarket was perfect in a Fallout sense.
But yes, dismiss it even F-Tactics wipes the floor with it.
Hroesvelgr
First time out of the vault
gongos said:
Calm down there buddy.
You are misinterpreting what he's trying to get at. I can tell that, like me, he prefers to have his intellect and imagination engaged, even at the expense of his senses. Yes, you are right, FO1 & 2 had isometric, 2d world views and poor graphics by today's standards. Yes, obviously FO3 is prettier and more fun to walk around in (and so is NV). No one is going to argue with that, and to me it's one of the few things I like about FO3. I have to admit that Bethesda really did put a lot of effort into the look and feel of the place in spite of whatever challenges the shitty engine may have given them, and I admire how much they stayed true to the whole aesthetic of Fallout and perhaps even advanced it.
But what he's talking about is something completely different. While you are totally right about how FO3 is far superior to the originals in terms of the senses, in my opinion this is the only advantage it has and at the same time its only real tie to FO1 & 2. What he means by "poorly designed" is that it is fundamentally flawed from a game play perspective. FO3 is a run around and kill things game, and the only real role playing elements are that you have to manage an inventory and get to make some (rather meaningless) dialogue choices.
To me, the originals are far superior in immersion in spite of their graphics and admittedly cumbersome combat because they force you take make meaningful decisions about who your character is and what he does. The SPECIAL system actually meant something then and it made you think carefully about how you would specialize your character, which in turn you were rewarded for with a unique experience that suited your personal protagonist. Obviously we prefer different things - you would rather have better graphics and an easier, more understandable style of game play while I prefer risk vs. reward, superior writing and dialogue and a game that reacts to your character in a unique and personal way depending on your decisions and skill sets.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I don't get what everyone is getting on about exploiting turn-based combat. My level 1 character can take down a mutant with a 10mm pistol in Fallout 3. In Fallout 1 I would never try that.
Hroesvelgr
First time out of the vault
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
True, there isn't a lot of risk involved and combat is really easy in FO3 and NV, especially since enemies scale to your level. As far as being a role-playing game that is based on a rational system where your character's statistics matter in combat... well it isn't.
But, you do have to be honest about the originals. While combat was much more difficult in general, many encounters could be completely trivialized by the mechanics. For example, I would take out the entire Navarro base by myself by starting my turn on the inside of a door way, walking one step out and sniping the closest oponnent's eyes, then walking back in to cover and ending my turn. In this way I destroyed the entire base several times without ever even being shot. Also, as much as I hate to admit it, I very rarely would play any type of character other than a sniper, using the gauss or sniper rifle for targeted eye shots. I am enough of a power gamer not to refuse something that is that over powered and effective. To this day it is hard for me to shake that habit; even my first playthrough in NV used that strategy with the Gobi Campaign rifle that I found, though now I am playing a melee character to spice things up. Which, I am finding, is not that different in balance unfortunately.
Edit: however combat in an open area was still risky, and for me the combat system isn't that important any way. I will play RTwP, turn based, whatever. To me what matters most are the rest of the mechanics and especially the quest design and story writing.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
True, Fallout: Tactics probably had the best combat mechanics.
That is basically how every cover-based shooter in the world plays out.
Hide, shoot, hide, shoot, hide, shoot.
Repeat until you start having nightmares about Whack-A-Mole.
Hide, shoot, hide, shoot, hide, shoot.
Repeat until you start having nightmares about Whack-A-Mole.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
With turn based mechanics, though. It's classic Fallout meets cover-based shooters.
Hroesvelgr
First time out of the vault
Yep. I agree I would play say Gears of War the same way, but the difference is that in real time your enemy has a chance to hit you when you reveal yourself whereas in Fallout the only thing the AI could do was try to reach the doorway, which they never would.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
What I meant to say was,
Gee-whiz, it's classic Fallout turn-based combat meets squad-level, tactical 3rd person isometric combat!
Hroesvelgr said:
But if they hit you, they usually just stand there continuing to shoot long after you've ducked back into cover to regen.
It's not really an issue of mechanics, it's an issue of having AI capable of dealing with it.
Back in 1997, it wasn't a big deal, the fact that in 2010 we have painfully few games were the AI can grasp such things as flanking and suppression is irritating.
Hroesvelgr
First time out of the vault
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Ah I see you were still talking about tactics. Yeah, I really did enjoy that game even though it was only a combat game rather than a full fledged RPG. I liked to play it on turn based and real time and the combat was a blast, it seemed to work really well. Plus there's nothing like blasting robots with a beefed up AA-12 type shotgun stocked with EMP rounds.
generalissimofurioso said:
I agree, I can only imagine that it must be very difficult to code such unscripted AI behaviors. My room mates and I have played the Halo: Reach campaign a lot and it seems to be fairly decent, or just as good as anything I guess. Those Elites are sneaky fuckers some times. Definitely agree though, many games just up the hitpoints and damage output of the baddies instead of giving them decent AI.
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Not to dispute the ease of Fallout 3, but your level one character probably isn't killing any super mutants unless you're playing on very easy. Also Hroesvelgr pretty much covered why F1/F2 weren't "hard".
Hroesvelgr said:
I didn't even use my companion at the end of Fallout 2. I destroyed everything on the oil rig by standing around a door while they lined up single file for a shot in the eyes.
Thomas de Aynesworth
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
korindabar said:
Not saying I would, but for the sake of argument, start up Fallout 1 and go find some Super Mutants without leveling up and see how well you do against them with the 10 mm pistol, on the easiest setting.
Let's see how well your "turn based exploitation" turns out.
WorstUsernameEver
But best title ever!
That's more of a lore issue than an issue with difficulty though. You meet super mutants almost at the beginning of the game in Fallout 3. You.. don't in Fallout 1. The comparison should be between enemies of the same tier. That said, the problem is more with Fallout 3 and New Vegas being incredibly easy, since Fallout 1 and 2 were far from being hard (I never needed to optimize my builds or equipment for example).
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
Uh... Ya you could, well, lvl 2, since you level as soonas you leave the "vault" and head into nonsense town. You couldn't do that in the classics because of the combat system. FO3's retarded combat system makes it so that no-matter what, you do damage. Try that in Fallout, go run around Mariposa, when you encounter patrol... let me knowkorindabar said:
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
Well it was tweaked for real time rather then tourn based. But in general it was not bad.
Though I think the best tourn based combat so far was presented with Jagged Alliance 2. It offered a lot of options and it really gave you a chance to win impossible situations with tactics (or sometimes a bit of luck). For someone in love with tourn based combat this is awesome.
Well it doesnt mean that it cant be improved of course. I always thought the AI while not beeing bad should be improved (for example the AI would not climp while you can). With the hardware we have today I think we could with tourn based combat get some amazing AI to work. But sadly today the emphasis is more on the visuals and physics then the AI really which in pretty much all games is still traped in the stone age. I mean in most shooters today the AI is more stupid in then Half Life 1 where they would retreat, storm in groups, change their positions and even throw grenades when you are behind cover. For that time amazing. In Either F3 or Vegas the people arent even searching for cover just runing in zig-zag around ... which does not give you arealistic feeling of a shoot out. But well.
Tourn based combat like in Jagged Alliance gave me here always a better feeling. Mainly cause the enemy waited for "you" to attack and was not always charging like a headless chicken. Sometimes when he had a huge numerical advantage he did that mainly with weak soldiers acting like canon fooder. But if you been in battle with elite forces they would act somewhat differently.
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
korindabar said:
Not really. Unless you meet a SM armed with a weapon that can one-hit kill you all you have to do is use some basic FPS tactics and the insta-healing Stimpaks.
In FO1 instead, you can't kill a SM in one turn so he'll have a shot at you. *Game over*
Faceless Stranger
Board Drifter
And since there are no one-hit weapons that orcs use in FO3...
Also, I heard someone use the "They had teh bad grafix an teh no immurshun" argument... called it
Also, I heard Halo mentioned... so FO3 AND shit-box players eh? Game's not good unless you can see the people walking like robots with pinecone suppositories in teh awsum first person?!!?11?
Also, I heard someone use the "They had teh bad grafix an teh no immurshun" argument... called it
Also, I heard Halo mentioned... so FO3 AND shit-box players eh? Game's not good unless you can see the people walking like robots with pinecone suppositories in teh awsum first person?!!?11?
guys even the Fallout 3 developers (tood or hines not sure) said if you WANT to play F3 like a FPS then you can. So it definetly has the qualities of one.
I dont know why that is so hard to accept ...
I dont know why that is so hard to accept ...