Emil speaks on Fallout 3 combat, armor and more.

[The Dutch Ghost]

Hi SuAside,

The whole weapon mechanics sound like those of System Shock 2, and I can tell you that that became incredible annoying after a while.
At some point I felt it was better to take damage while trying to take out an enemy with the wrench or that light-saber than using a gun as that would make it deteriorate.

 

[I_eat_supermutants]

that is NOT what i was saying BN. stop getting all annoyed each and every time guns are mentioned, you commie pinko nazimuffin'.

Sigged for sheer hilarity.

On topic.
I am just not a big fan of the whole durability factor anyways.
For a pure RP aspect, for me, I just roleplayed in Fallout 1&2 "This is my gun. I take good care of this gun. In my time traveling the map, I maintain this gun with this bottle of whiskey that I carry with me" sort of thing. Maybe I'm just retarded.

 

[Brother None]

that is NOT what i was saying BN. stop getting all annoyed each and every time guns are mentioned, you commie pinko nazimuffin'.

Whu'?

You don't feel that in fact Bethesda's system of decay-means-inferior-usage is simply the best no matter how unrealistic?

Not that it jamming up on me wouldn't make sense and work, but a gun degrading and thus getting a lower RoF is simply gameplay-wise superior to it getting a higher RoF through degrading. Especially since most people simply do not care that much about guns.

 

[Mungrul]

I think we all know deep down that the only reason weapon durability is in the game is because Bethesda couldn't figure out how to remove the system from the Oblivion engine.
Either that or they simply couldn't be arsed.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Degrading weapons/armor is just another way to drag out the gameplay without adding more content.

Ever play oblivion?

Having to switch to horrible inventory UI and spam click on a repair hammer ~40 times to fix my weapons/armor after EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER does NOT add anything positive to the experience.

 

[Morbus]

There were hotkeys for a reason, lol... But it's tedious, yes. Not the repair part, the fight part. How the hell does one person kill so many people and bests!? One'd kill a minotaur and be rich for ever because he was a hero! Stupid action games...

Look at fallout. You kill Gizmo and you're a hero. You kill hundreds of villains and robbers all around the imperial city and nobody gives a fuck.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

One wonders why they even needed a lowly adventurer in the first place with the hundreds of ridiculously high-level guards running around...

 

[SuAside]

Sigged for sheer hilarity.

I am just not a big fan of the whole durability factor anyways.

oh, i quite agree.

i liked FO's approach of keeping failures dependant on skill with the particular gun and a pinch of luck.

You don't feel that in fact Bethesda's system of decay-means-inferior-usage is simply the best no matter how unrealistic?

no, i don't feel that is the best implementation of weapon durability. i would think that would've been pretty obvious by now.
hell, even STALKER's shitty weapon durability system feels better than what Bethesda is proposing.

and that's saying A LOT considering how crapass STALKER's implementation was...

Not that it jamming up on me wouldn't make sense and work, but a gun degrading and thus getting a lower RoF is simply gameplay-wise superior to it getting a higher RoF through degrading. Especially since most people simply do not care that much about guns.

well, if it degrades and goes up in rate of fire, it is coupled to the danger of dumping a magazine by accident as well as danger of being damaged permanently?

i think gameplay mechanics-wise, you can balance it out nicely. bad gun = less dps is just a tad too simplistic for my tastes, and really not worthwhile if offered as such. where's Bethesda's lauded "INNOVASHUN!"?

either way, if you're going to keep it that simple, you might just as well keep it the way it was handled in FO1/2...

 

[Glowing Ghouls]

imagine certain enemies in the game being nigh impossible to beat with just base weapon skill, no matter how many times you shoot them in the face.

I think I approve.

Wow, how much were you paid to be appear so stupid ?



Personaly on the whole weapons debate issue, skill should only affect chance to hit, and also tie into the weapons maintence skill and how it applies to that type of weapon (assuming there isnt a single 'gun' skill) since the better you are with a type of weapon the better you know how to maintain it.

And 95% of the maintence should apply to things like carbon buildup and getting it out


That said, Im suprised noones guessed the obvious yet.......

They're too lazy to modify the game from stock oblivion and remove weapon degredation per use, which means you're going to have to use a repair hammer on the gun every few battles.

If they wanted to do it right, the main item needed would be pipe cleaners and rags for cleaning out carbon buildup, plus wire brushes and such. Past that, have an armorers kit item, expenseve as hell and useless unless you have the armorer perk (after training ingame to learn some skills in the area) and an armorer skill as well, which is at 15% or so until you get the perk THEN can be leveld up, and used to repair bigger issues with the weapon.

But then, that would annoy the console kiddies theyre marketing this steaming pile for, as it'd be too complicated.

The irony is if theyd just made games using the FO2 engine, or an updated version of it with better graphics, and pumped out sequels and shit they would have found a niche market that isnt targeted that often, and have made if not a blockbuster hit, a steady trickle of profit, and some real street cred as capable of making an actual RPG, instead of 'doing what we do best' by pumping out an over hyped under delivering action adventure hack'n'slash.

I mean seriously, their games are almost the FPS version of dungeon siege with the main differnce being that instead of going in a straight like (or BACKWARDS) you get to wander all over the fucking place at random to your hearts content.

 

[terebikun]

That said, Im suprised noones guessed the obvious yet.......

They're too lazy to modify the game from stock oblivion and remove weapon degredation per use, which means you're going to have to use a repair hammer on the gun every few battles.

Mungrul said that already. Feel free to read the thread beyond picking out Bodybag to flame.

have an armorers kit item, expenseve as hell and useless unless you have the armorer perk (after training ingame to learn some skills in the area) and an armorer skill as well, which is at 15% or so until you get the perk THEN can be leveld up, and used to repair bigger issues with the weapon.

Uh, this is less tedious how?

The irony is if theyd just made games using the FO2 engine, or an updated version of it with better graphics, and pumped out sequels and shit they would have found a niche market that isnt targeted that often, and have made if not a blockbuster hit, a steady trickle of profit, and some real street cred as capable of making an actual RPG, instead of 'doing what we do best' by pumping out an over hyped under delivering action adventure hack'n'slash.

"Real street cred" is giving in to the argument that all Fallout fans want is Fallout 2.5? I can't see a company deciding to opt for a "steady trickle of profit" over a massive blockbuster hit. Doing what they do best makes beaucoup bucks.

 

[Glowing Ghouls]

That said, Im suprised noones guessed the obvious yet.......

They're too lazy to modify the game from stock oblivion and remove weapon degredation per use, which means you're going to have to use a repair hammer on the gun every few battles.

Mungrul said that already. Feel free to read the thread beyond picking out Bodybag to flame.

His tread was stupid enough to deserve to be picked out and flamed.

have an armorers kit item, expenseve as hell and useless unless you have the armorer perk (after training ingame to learn some skills in the area) and an armorer skill as well, which is at 15% or so until you get the perk THEN can be leveld up, and used to repair bigger issues with the weapon.

Uh, this is less tedious how?

Because at least it makes fucking sense.

Most of the time you just need to clean your weapon. Thats how guns work. OCCASIONLY something breaks, and unless its something REALLY basic (handguards on an AR15/M16 for example) you take it to a trained armorer to fix because you know enough to know youll just fuck it up worse.

The irony is if theyd just made games using the FO2 engine, or an updated version of it with better graphics, and pumped out sequels and shit they would have found a niche market that isnt targeted that often, and have made if not a blockbuster hit, a steady trickle of profit, and some real street cred as capable of making an actual RPG, instead of 'doing what we do best' by pumping out an over hyped under delivering action adventure hack'n'slash.

"Real street cred" is giving in to the argument that all Fallout fans want is Fallout 2.5? I can't see a company deciding to opt for a "steady trickle of profit" over a massive blockbuster hit. Doing what they do best makes beaucoup bucks.

I'd settle for Fallout3 instead of Fallout SPINOFF 3.

What is being shown so far has all the makings of yet ANOTHER spinoff.

PoS they told us 'dont judge it til its out'

FO:Tactics they told us 'dont judge it til its out' (tho to be fair a fair number of people bought the hype for that one)

And now the 3rd incarnation of Fallout 3 (FO2 engine one canceled a short time after FO2 was released, Van Buren, and now this one) is due to be yet another spinoff, and once again we're being told 'dont judge it til its out'.

More like 'dont call it shit til you taste it, even tho it looks like shit and smells like shit, and attracts flys (beth/console fanbois) like shit.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

FO:Tactics they told us 'dont judge it til its out' (tho to be fair a fair number of people bought the hype for that one)

To be honest, Tactics was a great game. Once you get past the fact that it wasn't Fallout 3 (and it wasn't trying to be, although I guarantee it feels a lot more like Fallout than 3 ever will) you can enjoy a very solid turn-based tactical action game with RPG elements, a good story, and plenty of replay value.

 

[Glowing Ghouls]

FO:Tactics they told us 'dont judge it til its out' (tho to be fair a fair number of people bought the hype for that one)

To be honest, Tactics was a great game. Once you get past the fact that it wasn't Fallout 3 (and it wasn't trying to be, although I guarantee it feels a lot more like Fallout than 3 ever will) you can enjoy a very solid turn-based tactical action game with RPG elements, a good story, and plenty of replay value.

Oh I agree there, but it was also pushed as a FALLOUT game, which it also failed at.

HMMWVs and predator armor, need I say more ?