Fallout 3. Is it really so bad?

[Serge 13]

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.

 

[Sander]

Describing VATS in terms of turns is ridiculous. It just doesn't work.

Even in third-person perspective, even in an over-the-head perspective, turn-based combat in this day and age would feel antiquated and slow.

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The myth that turn-based combat is an antiquated, outdated system is exactly that: a myth.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.

 

[DForge]

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.

 

[Bloody William]

Describing VATS in terms of turns is ridiculous. It just doesn't work.

Even in third-person perspective, even in an over-the-head perspective, turn-based combat in this day and age would feel antiquated and slow.

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The myth that turn-based combat is an antiquated, outdated system is exactly that: a myth.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.

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'm giving my opinioms on FO3 as someone who has never played the original or second. That being said, I certainly understand why many of you are dissapointed with the game as far as the IP and canon goes, and I cannot really comment on that. However, I still have some issues with it as a Bethesda game. And awaited the game more as oblivion 2 than FO3.

Now, not that any of this is really unexpected. Well, some of it is.

I was expecting it to be even more dumbed down than Oblivion (in regards to earlier TES games), in the sense of quest depth, linnearity (is that a word?), and overall feeling to the world. And goddamnit, was I right.

I loved Morrowind. It may not have had the most vibrant quests, but the world was fucking gorgeous. Not just physically, but in terms of depth. You didn't need a bullshit fast travel system because there were interesting places to explore while walking. Every region had such a different feel. The citys had depth and factions and architecture.

And then came Oblivion, which had nicer graphics, some more entertaining quests, but a bland ass fucking world, where every house is almost the same, everywhere I go its like the magical forest. No Blightlands, no Vivec, no crazy fucking mushroom citys. Just bullshit cottages everywhere and walled citys.

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.

And then there's Falout3.... Seriously, I feel like I'm playing deus ex IW or something. Apparently bethesdas idea of an RPG is jamming FPS levels in to an open world. Like really? to get to the GNR building, I have to go in to a (linear) subway tunnel then go through a few city blocks that just happen to be secluded by rubble in to a single fucking corridor? I bet they're not releasing a mod tool like they had for TES is because half their fucking city is interior environments or w.e.

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 ). 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.

Goddamnit, that was a long rant. I was just hoping for more. I still do enjoy it, and will probably finish a good bit of it, but I see a trend here. I put about 300 hours in to morrowind, through playing and modding, but barely 100 in to oblivion. That puts fallout at 33, which seems about right, I can't imagine myself putting in more. That's just about as long as my one gta4 playthrough, which is very sad for what could have been an amazingly rich RPG.

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.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Hahaha, NWN 1 & 2, and both kotors are turnbased games. Obviously you lack to understanding to see this.

 

[Per]

Hahaha, NWN 1 & 2, and both kotors are turnbased games.

No, they're real time with pause. TOEE was turn-based, as I understand it. Arcanum could be played turn-based.

 

[Bloody William]

Hahaha, NWN 1 & 2, and both kotors are turnbased games. Obviously you lack to understanding to see this.

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).

 

[ShatteredJon]

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.

 

[Sander]

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.

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.

Hahaha, NWN 1 & 2, and both kotors are turnbased games. Obviously you lack to understanding to see this.

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

 

[Per]

No, they are semi-turn-based.

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.

Uh they are all based off of 3.5 DnD rules.

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

 

[Roflcore]

Hahaha, NWN 1 & 2, and both kotors are turnbased games. Obviously you lack to understanding to see this.

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).

But at KotoR you can force pause after each round. Pretty turn based to me.

 

[Bloody William]

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Show me one Western RPG that has been worth playing in the past five years. One.

 

[Roflcore]

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.

 

[Sander]

But at KotoR you can force pause after each round. Pretty turn based to me.

*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.

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.

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.

I'll ask again:

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

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.

 

[Roflcore]

But at KotoR you can force pause after each round. Pretty turn based to me.

*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.

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)

 

[Bloody William]

Show me one Western RPG that has been worth playing in the past five years. One.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sander]

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ausir]

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

 

[Marx]

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.