Fallout 3. Is it really so bad?

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Booze Zombie, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. Serge 13

    Serge 13 Cranium Cat oTO Orderite

    Jul 20, 2006
    my main problem with Fallout 3 is that why did they change some stuff that didn't really need to change ?

    a couple of examples :

    1. The way the vault door opens
    2. The weapons
    3. Character Creation

    and etc.
     
  2. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Describing VATS in terms of turns is ridiculous. It just doesn't work.
    Ah yes, the old 'It's oooooold' response. Must be why the first computer game ever (Pong) was in real-time.

    Perhaps you'd like to say that to the people who made Civilization 4? Another one of those antiquated, old games that can't survive in today's market.

    The myth that turn-based combat is an antiquated, outdated system is exactly that: a myth.
    Most games out there are quick, action-based, yes. But that doesn't mean that suddenly every game that isn't like that is antiquated and old.
     
  3. DForge

    DForge Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    343
    Jul 29, 2006
    turn based is as good as real time. There are some games who work better in turnbased mode, and there are some who work better in realtime. Try playing turnbased soccer or realtime chess and see what I mean ;)

    Fallout is one of those games that is flexible, but IMHO works much better in turn based system.
     
  4. Bloody William

    Bloody William First time out of the vault

    41
    Oct 31, 2008
    Civilization 4 is a completely different genre from Fallout 3, and if you're reaching into THAT game for a reason to complain about the combat, you're clearly desperate to defend the mechanic in any way possible. You can't say that turn-based combat is still viable in an RPG just because it's in a 4X strategy game. They are utterly different things.

    Show me one modern Western RPG that's completely turn-based. Even the majority of eastern RPGs, even Final Fantasy, are partially or fully real-time. Every major game s either real-time or a combination/adaptation of turn-based, whether it's Fable 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Morrowind/Oblivion, KOTOR, VtM:Bloodlines (admittedly more of a shooter like Deus Ex, but still one of my favorite RPG-ish games), Mass Effect, the Witcher... I'm sorry, but turn-based combat was slow in the first two Fallouts, and a total antique now.

    I completely agree with you. I enjoyed Oblivion a lot, played it to death, but it lacked that slightly alien, fascinating spark that made Morrowind so compelling and interesting.

    I also agree, but I don't mind so much (except the comparison to Invisible War, which is just unfair to make with ANY game :mrgreen:). The subway layout and unfortunate design choice of huge rubble piles to get in your way is a glaring, obnoxious issue. I'm glad that design is less than a quarter of the overall game space. Once you get to the national mall or Chevy Chase or major parts of the city it looks pretty great, but getting there through feral ghoul subway "stages" is unnecessary.

    Now, you have some valid complaints that I agree with. Of course, you're not demanding a modern game with antique mechanics purely for the purpose of rosy nostalgia. I'm a lot happier with Fallout 3 than I expected to be because I really was worried it would be just Oblivion with guns, and I think it's pleasantly more than that. I'm also immensely pleased that Bethsoft retained and build on the Fallout series' aesthetic, which I was really worried they wouldn't be able to do.

    If you haven't played them yet, you really should play Fallout and Fallout 2. The combat is slow (but satisfying when you actually get stuff together), but they're both great, classic games. You can buy and download them legitimately from Good Old Games for $6 each, fully playable on XP/Vista. Very much worth it.
     
  5. ShatteredJon

    ShatteredJon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    183
    Oct 29, 2008
    Hahaha, NWN 1 & 2, and both kotors are turnbased games. Obviously you lack to understanding to see this.
     
  6. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    No, they're real time with pause. TOEE was turn-based, as I understand it. Arcanum could be played turn-based.
     
  7. Bloody William

    Bloody William First time out of the vault

    41
    Oct 31, 2008
    No, they are semi-turn-based. Rather than discrete turns, they adapt the whole "turns/commands" idea into a more real-time interface. Neither game series has the AP-queue-up shuffle, nor do they force you to wait while every enemy takes their turn. It all happens essentially at once, with moments to pause and set commands. You know, like Fallout 3 (but with less shooting).
     
  8. ShatteredJon

    ShatteredJon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    183
    Oct 29, 2008
    Uh they are all based off of 3.5 DnD rules. While the semblence might be real time, they are definately turn-based games. That's why they run off of rounds, thats why you only get so many attacks/actions per round. Comparing this to VATS is a gross misconception I'm afraid.
     
  9. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    No, they aren't. The fact that Civilization 4 is another game doesn't mean that the game mechanic of turn-based gameplay is suddenly not turn-based.

    Look, turn-based combat is very good for tactical combat and strategy. Which is why games like Civilization 4 use it, and which is also why Fallout used it.
    The fact that every game is made to be fast and action-oriented doesn't mean that turn-based combat is outdated and antiquated. It just shows the very singular mind of a game industry that is focused on doing only one type of game: the type of game that scored the latest HUGE HIT.

    No, they're real-time with pause using an internal segmentation they call 'turns' but which aren't turns at all.
     
  10. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    No, they aren't. They don't feature turns, only a set delay between certain sets of actions (but not others) in a real-time framework.

    Yes, based on. Adaptations. Not turn-based, since they don't feature turns etc.
     
  11. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    579
    Nov 2, 2008
    But at KotoR you can force pause after each round. Pretty turn based to me.
     
  12. Bloody William

    Bloody William First time out of the vault

    41
    Oct 31, 2008
    They were based off of 3.5 D&D but with various checks and modifications to incorporate the system into real-time gameplay. "Rounds" were less discrete than they were periods of time (that determined number of actions, length to cast spells, movement, et cetera). Tabletop D&D uses turns, but modern D&D games do not. They simply use the system's mechanics in a semi-turn-based/real-time way.

    No, Civilization uses it because that's how all 4x games work. When managing an empire and distributing resources on such a macro scale, turn-based works well. As the scope gets smaller and smaller, real-time works better. Civ is a completely different genre from Fallout and any other RPG, and its "combat" is little more than training/developing/moving your troops when it's your turn. You are comparing two completely different things. You're reaching so far across genres that you might as well be complaining why you don't get to throw footballs in Fallout 3.

    I'll ask again:

    Show me one major western RPG that's come out recently that uses turn-based combat. One.
     
  13. ShatteredJon

    ShatteredJon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    183
    Oct 29, 2008
    Show me one Western RPG that has been worth playing in the past five years. One.
     
  14. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    579
    Nov 2, 2008
    Well I just happen to know a RPG what just came out: Fallout


    hahaha sorry, couldn't resist.

    What im trying to say: its been a long time since there has been a game were you can actually role play. You can surely name one if you want (like fallout), but that won't work for me.
     
  15. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    *sigh*
    Not this retarded element again.
    Look, here's how turn-based games work:
    Player A does something, Player B does something, Player C does something, repeat.

    Here's how KotOR and all other real-time with pause games work:
    All players queue up their actions, all players act at the same time.
    There's a very fundamental difference here. Try playing chess or poker if you're acting at the same time as your opponents.

    First of all, there have been several real-time 4X games (most recently Sins of a Solar Empire).

    Second, and this is very important for you to understand: there's nothing inherently different between 4X games and RPGs that makes turn-based gameplay less slow or antiquated on one than the other.


    There are no non-Indie recent real-time RPGs.
    I'll say this again: all this shows is the singular mind of the game industry, *not* that turn-based combat is somehow obsolete.
    Again: turn-based combat offers a vastly *different* experience from real-time combat. Real-time combat isn't the evolution of turn-based combat.
    What this means is that the advent of real-time gaming has not made turn-based combat antiquated, at most it has made it less used because apparently game designers only make fast action-based games because the major publishers believe that that's the only thing that sells well.
     
  16. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    579
    Nov 2, 2008
    True

    But in the very same way it should not be too difficult to acctually make KotoR a real turn based game. If balanced it work well I guess. It would be still 3D and not Iso-View. So the "old" argument doesn't really work. That what I was trying to say. At least I can't see how chaning KotoR to a truely turn-based game would ruin it. But then again we never know (same goes for failout 3)
     
  17. Bloody William

    Bloody William First time out of the vault

    41
    Oct 31, 2008
    So you're whining out one side of your mouth that there haven't been good RPGs in the last half decade (I disagree), but still complain that Bethsoft hasn't waved its magic programmer wand and cured all of the flaws that were present IN Fallout and Fallout 2, which I'm fairly certain you'd classify as worthwhile RPGs. Do you understand the contradiction?

    Fair enough, I forgot about Sins. I personally prefer Galactic Empires, and really hope Stardock is going to put out a GE3 instead of more expansions. It could use an overall bump up in design, make it a bit more complex without the expansion approach.

    Yes, there is. Those two genres are fundamentally different in every way. They are two different types of games that require two different approaches, and face two different sets of problems when making them balanced and well-paced.

    One genre has you managing a large number of resources, troops, cities, all with options for micromanagement, and often working across a long period of "time" (again, the Civilization example). The other genre has you dealing in direct combat with few or no companions that can be controlled in any significant way, making your only choices those of movement and weapon control. And your example (Sins) just proves that real-time can apply to the former genre, not that turn-based works well in the latter. I'm still waiting for an example.

    I'll accept even an indie turn-based RPG if you name one. I'm always open to new titles.

    I'll go back to one of my original points: Fallout and Fallout 2, while great games, had, even at the time a combat system that was slow and clunky. It is not a system that works well. It makes combat unnecessarily slow and that is why it is not in any major RPG. Because in this genre and in this day and age it does not work well. You can't pull out card games and macro strategy games and hold them us as proof that the system works well in this genre. They are utterly different things and require utterly different approaches. That you keep insisting it works by picking out examples further and further from the genre and ignoring that it wasn't exactly perfect a decade ago in FO and FO2 demonstrates the insistent rose-colored glasses so many people here wear.
     
  18. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Oh, you want an example that turn-based works well in a small-scale combat setting?
    Jagged Alliance 2. Fallout, Fallout 2. Temple of Elemental Evil. The Ultima series up till VII.

    Also, I know a lot of people who think games like Civilization 4 move too slowly for them. Time to make it real-time, right?
    There's the upcoming Age of Decadence. The Geneforge series and other games from Spiderweb Software. The Omega Syndrome is another one.

    The Indie turn-based RPG market is thriving, actually.

    Fallout's combat only became slow when you got involved in very large fights, like the one in Adytum.

    Otherwise, it really wasn't a problem back then, and there are no reviews from that time that complain about the combat system.
    Making combat turn-based was a very conscious design decision to emulate pen&paper gameplay and bring more strategy to the game. And it worked pretty well for what it tried to do, barring some problems with the AI.

    Again: the idea that it is too slow for today's market is just that, an idea. It isn't actually based on facts.

    And, to take back your arguments, turn-based RPGs are an entirely different genre from the action-based RPGs like Oblivion.
     
  19. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
    The Heroes of Might and Magic and King's Bounty games are strategy/RPG hybrids and have turn-based combat.
     
  20. Marx

    Marx First time out of the vault

    28
    Apr 28, 2004
    As playerbases evolve and change, so does game design so it can cater to the largest potential base of buyers.

    As game technologies evolve and change, so will game design so it can cater to the largest potential base of buyers.

    In the period of 10 years, the technologies and the playerbase have both evolved greatly. Fallout 3 was the offspring of these changes - and it's alright.

    I think the powerarmor looks funny, but the game itself it no worse than (nor greater than) Fallout 2.

    The first game has and always will be the best and nothing, no matter who created it (bethesda, black isle, etc), will ever measure up the the storyline, writing, premise.

    As for the turnbased/iso purists - sorry guys, times change and you either keep up or get left behind. That's just the reality of the games market. I would play the hell out of a well done 3rd person iso/TB Fallout 3 - but it wouldn't do anywhere near as well on the market as the current incarnation has. Poor sales generally mean the death of a franchise - so take some solace in the fact that Fallout 3 is looking like the heavyweight of the year.