Fallout 3. Logistics and acceptance.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
>Wow. This speaks one phrase.
> "Clueless as hell."

Give me a clue, then.


>Have you ever had a game
>where you got shot in
>the eyes in a single-player
>game and had to reload
>due to an instant kill?
> Know how frustrating that
>is? Know why it's
>not used in CRPGs and
>sparingly in tactical games (like
>surviving or standing after getting
>shot in the head in
>Jagged Alliance 2, X-Com, etc.)?
> CRPG Development 101.
>It's because that bullshit isn't
>fun at all, and just
>makes the game a pain
>to play. And here
>you where whining about your
>lack of an attention span,
>what happens when you're hitting
>the reload button for the
>nth time?

Instant kills happen in Fallout. I have gotten killed many times at nearly full health due to a single critical hit. It doesn't bother me. It's not like it would happen all the time anyway.

But hey, maybe I'm just weird. I love InstaGib in Unreal Tournament.


>Might I suggest one of 1,500
>Quake III Realism mods?

Can you suggest one with detailed character developement, good NPC interaction, compelling story and lots of humor?
 
>Give me a clue, then.

I don't have the time to do that with every Counter-Strike chucklehead that wanders on through.


>Instant kills happen in Fallout. I
>have gotten killed many times
>at nearly full health due
>to a single critical hit.
>It doesn't bother me. It's
>not like it would happen
>all the time anyway.

Those instant crit hits are when you're in place where you don't belong, or a very rare thing. However, with your previous "realism" prattle, that would be fairly nonexistant compared to being killed from eye shots. The equasion would be: enemy with gun + close range + eye shot = you reload.

>But hey, maybe I'm just weird.
>I love InstaGib in Unreal
>Tournament.

Is this Unreal Tournament?

>Can you suggest one with detailed
>character developement, good NPC interaction,
>compelling story and lots of
>humor?

The point you fail to realize is that Fallout is not meant about realism. I think the cover of the CD case might have been the first hint, but there's no helping some people, it seems.
 
>Those instant crit hits are when
>you're in place where you
>don't belong, or a very
>rare thing. However, with
>your previous "realism" prattle, that
>would be fairly nonexistant compared
>to being killed from eye
>shots. The equasion would
>be: enemy with gun +
>close range + eye shot
>= you reload.

So? The idea is that you shoot the enemy first. And how often do eye shots happen? And I wouldn't want it to happen to you on easy setting, maybe just on hard.

>Is this Unreal Tournament?

I just think unforgiving combat (InstaGib was an example) is more interesting.

>The point you fail to realize
>is that Fallout is not
>meant about realism. I
>think the cover of the
>CD case might have been
>the first hint, but there's
>no helping some people, it
>seems.

I really don't want it to be another Counter-Strike (which I haven't played all that much). Fallout is not about real-life realism, but it would have been nice if it was more believable. The same could of course be said about a lot of games, I'm not just dissing Fallout.

You don't seem to be willing to look at it from my point of view, so we may just as well stop discussing.
 
>I really don't want it to
>be another Counter-Strike (which I
>haven't played all that much).
>Fallout is not about real-life
>realism, but it would have
>been nice if it was
>more believable. The same could
>of course be said about
>a lot of games, I'm
>not just dissing Fallout.

Computer games aren't that realistic tho, and you also know this. How fun would it be to play a game that would kill your character with one shot, every single time.. not fun... especially not an RPG where this would happen..

You also have to look at what Fallout is all about, the stuff you are talking about doesn't fit in my perception of Fallout. And there are alot who would agree with me on this.

Webmaster@NMA
[link:www.nma-fallout.com|No Mutants Allowed]
 
>So? The idea is that you
>shoot the enemy first.

Twit.

>And
>how often do eye shots
>happen? And I wouldn't want
>it to happen to you
>on easy setting, maybe just
>on hard.

Even without eye shots, more of the "realism" bullshit would create more frustration for the player. How about we also eliminate incrementing HP when you level up? That's not realistic, either. So therefore you'd always be in a contest to try and jig the AI into a position where you're always going to shoot first. Perhaps even more of a trouble compared to Jagged Alliance 2, since you want things to have more realistics in effect.

To put it mildly, the battle with Decker would have been quite a bitch, even on easy.

>>Is this Unreal Tournament?
>
>I just think unforgiving combat (InstaGib
>was an example) is more
>interesting.

However, that assumes a situation that you'd be given initiative all the time. It also further unbalances the game by causing Speed to become an even more uber-stat.

>I really don't want it to
>be another Counter-Strike (which I
>haven't played all that much).
>Fallout is not about real-life
>realism, but it would have
>been nice if it was
>more believable.
>The same could
>of course be said about
>a lot of games, I'm
>not just dissing Fallout.

You want realism, go put a gun loaded with hollow-points into your mouth and pull the trigger. Then you'll be happy and I'll be happy.

>You don't seem to be willing
>to look at it from
>my point of view, so
>we may just as well
>stop discussing.

If you're going to whine, do it on your DeadJournal. I see your point of view. It's complete shit game design outside of some FPS genres.
 
>Computer games aren't that realistic tho,
>and you also know this.

What kind of excuse is that? Computers are powerful enough to handle something better than the typical simplistic rules. And I'm not after realism as in real life, but believeability as in books and movies.

>How fun would it be
>to play a game that
>would kill your character with
>one shot, every single time..
>not fun... especially not an
>RPG where this would happen..

Um, in reality, single shot kills are very rare. So why would it happen every single time in the game?

>You also have to look at
>what Fallout is all about,
>the stuff you are talking
>about doesn't fit in my
>perception of Fallout. And there
>are alot who would agree
>with me on this.

The game has talking two-headed cows. There's an explanation for it, they are mutated. It fits with the setting. That's just plain fun.

The game also has a Desert Eagle .44 with hollow-point ammo that doesn't kill with an eye shot. There is no explanation. It doesn't fit with anything. That's just plain retarded.
 
>Even without eye shots, more of
>the "realism" bullshit would create
>more frustration for the player.
> How about we also
>eliminate incrementing HP when you
>level up? That's not
>realistic, either.

It's not realistic, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched that you get tougher as you gain more experience.

>So therefore
>you'd always be in a
>contest to try and jig
>the AI into a position
>where you're always going to
>shoot first. Perhaps even
>more of a trouble compared
>to Jagged Alliance 2, since
>you want things to have
>more realistics in effect.

I think this is more of a problem with the turn-based combat. Add reaction fire, or a system where you could interrupt the opponents turn if you have much better reactions.

>To put it mildly, the battle
>with Decker would have been
>quite a bitch, even on
>easy.

It's not my fault that the AI tend to target the player instead of NPCs, or that you are thrown right into a room with enemies. Either way, on easy you should be able to absorb quite a bit of damage.

>However, that assumes a situation that
>you'd be given initiative all
>the time. It also
>further unbalances the game by
>causing Speed to become an
>even more uber-stat.

Speed? Are you talking about Agility? Actually I think it would make Perception more of an über-stat, since it allows you to react earlier. And if you don't want to risk your life, avoid combat.

The rest of your post doesn't deserve an answer. But maybe you should have a talk with a psychiatrist?
 
>What kind of excuse is that?
>Computers are powerful enough to
>handle something better than the
>typical simplistic rules.

That's beside the point, or haven't you figured it out yet?

>Um, in reality, single shot kills
>are very rare. So why
>would it happen every single
>time in the game?

Because by your idiotic rambling, an eye shot with a hollow point should kill in Fallout, or do you forget what you post after you've spread your cerebral ejaculate? Do you have enough intelligence to figure out what a body shot or head shot would do with HP ammo? How about AP ammo, in the cases of armor?

It would make the need to heal regularly a burdon. Oh, but wait. For realism, you shouldn't just magically be able to heal yourself with skills in the span of a day.

>The game has talking two-headed cows.
>There's an explanation for it,
>they are mutated. It fits
>with the setting. That's just
>plain fun.

Apparently, you missed the setting as far as other things. Try again.

>The game also has a Desert
>Eagle .44 with hollow-point ammo
>that doesn't kill with an
>eye shot. There is no
>explanation. It doesn't fit with
>anything. That's just plain retarded.

It's a game, moron, not a life's simulation. Also, make up your fucking mind:

>Um, in reality, single shot kills
>are very rare. So why
>would it happen every single
>time in the game?

Which is it, or are you done farting around?
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-02 AT 10:40PM (GMT)[p]>>Even without eye shots, more of
>>the "realism" bullshit would create
>>more frustration for the player.
>> How about we also
>>eliminate incrementing HP when you
>>level up? That's not
>>realistic, either.
>
>It's not realistic, but it doesn't
>seem too far-fetched that you
>get tougher as you gain
>more experience.

Ah, yes. Tougher. When a HP bullet should instantly kill via a shot to the eye, and the same shot would shred a leg to pieces, you still get "tougher" with more HPs.

Come on, kid, you're dancing from one side to the other. Pick a fucking point where to stand and stick with it.

>I think this is more of
>a problem with the turn-based
>combat. Add reaction fire, or
>a system where you could
>interrupt the opponents turn if
>you have much better reactions.

Agreed that JA2's combat is a bit better, but again you seem to fail to understand the game.

It's also really blatantly obvious you've never played Wasteland.

>>To put it mildly, the battle
>>with Decker would have been
>>quite a bitch, even on
>>easy.
>
>It's not my fault that the
>AI tend to target the
>player instead of NPCs, or
>that you are thrown right
>into a room with enemies.
>Either way, on easy you
>should be able to absorb
>quite a bit of damage.

Where eye shots should lethal and being shot elsewhere just takes away HPs. *rolls eyes* Again, make up your damn mind already. Which is it? You absorb damage or you want realism? Or do you just want a select piece of realism, that eye shots are fatal?

The clue doesn't occur to you that they might target the player because they perceive them to be more of a threat, or that you just happened to be targeted more? Sometimes Ian or the Sherrif would be hit more than myself by far.

>>However, that assumes a situation that
>>you'd be given initiative all
>>the time. It also
>>further unbalances the game by
>>causing Speed to become an
>>even more uber-stat.
>
>Speed? Are you talking about Agility?
>Actually I think it would
>make Perception more of an
>über-stat, since it allows you
>to react earlier. And if
>you don't want to risk
>your life, avoid combat.

Very good. You do have some modicum of sentience. However you utterly fail on most other points. Along with your previous idiocy about how point-blank should always hit (nevermind that the 5% could be a bit of a dodge of the enemy or them putting a hand out to push the gun away - it's also obvious you're damn naive on the details of close-range gun fighting - it isn't like in the movies, twit), that eye shots should be fatal is also something you've not fully brought your brain up to full gear on. Now, if the eye shots should be fatal for the player, it would stand to reason the same would apply for the enemies.

Congratulations, dipshit, you've just introduced something that makes the game easier for the player and makes it even more certain that the player is going to go for the eyes, instead of crippling legs or other targets, and that is essentially creating an exploit. Go away and come back some century when you have a clue of game design before you start your clueless whining again.

>The rest of your post doesn't
>deserve an answer. But maybe
>you should have a talk
>with a psychiatrist?

No, but I'll definitely want to talk to your parents and ask them why they didn't wear a condom. Or, failing that, a clothing hanger. Even a stick would have been a mercy.

Tyrant94, why don't you and your brother go hide somewhere.
 
>3. I would like to have
>some sort of teachers in
>the game. ie. you start
>with only a few skills
>available. The rest are grayed
>out untill you find a
>teacher for that skill and
>if he teaches you, maybe
>after doing a quest, you
>get access to that skill.


i'm sorry thats retarded. like in real life if you had to shoot a gun you proably could not well of course
 
However, in some cases like lockpicking, science, and repair, this makes sense. If you don't know how to repair things, pick locks, or have a foundation in science, how could you "brush up on them" and advance through leveling up?

A tribal with a significant science skill? WTF?

Lockpicking? How the hell did they learn that? It's not an easy skill.

Repair? Repair what in Arroyo? A damn ROCK?
 
>>Um, in reality, single shot kills
>>are very rare. So why
>>would it happen every single
>>time in the game?
>
>Because by your idiotic rambling, an
>eye shot with a hollow
>point should kill in Fallout,
>or do you forget what
>you post after you've spread
>your cerebral ejaculate? Do
>you have enough intelligence to
>figure out what a body
>shot or head shot would
>do with HP ammo?
>How about AP ammo, in
>the cases of armor?

He seemed to suggest that ALL shots would be lethal. What I meant is that instant kill shots should still be a rare thing. It's not easy to hit that good in the heat of combat, you know.

*sigh*

You don't listen, do you? I DO NOT WANT TOTAL REALISM! I just want the game to be more believable. Which means it needs to be more consistent. I would prefer a bit more realism, but being consistently not real would work too. Putting in Desert Eagles, M60s, FN FALs.., what were they thinking?

P.S.
Do you talk to people like this face to face? I'm sick of your personal attacks. You have succeeded to drive me off.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-18-02 AT 05:30AM (GMT)[p]Oh, first off, I'd like to thank you for dropping the bullshit you first tried against me, and then at Odin.

"What kind of excuse is that? Computers are powerful enough to handle something better than the typical simplistic rules. And I'm not after realism as in real life, but believeability as in books and movies."

Just so everyone can see your idiocy one more time.

>He seemed to suggest that ALL
>shots would be lethal. What
>I meant is that instant
>kill shots should still be
>a rare thing. It's not
>easy to hit that good
>in the heat of combat,
>you know.

No, but every shot of that kind, if an eye shot is instantly fatal, would be severely crippling.

>You don't listen, do you? I
>DO NOT WANT TOTAL REALISM!
>I just want the game
>to be more believable. Which
>means it needs to be
>more consistent.

It is consistent in it's current game model as far as damage. Furthermore, if you want eye shots to be lethal, that means ONE shot in the leg, your leg is crippled. ONE shot in the arm, your arm is crippled. A shot to the head, feel lucky you're awake anytime soon. A shot to the abdomen, perhaps dying quickly or slowly, but it's still a severe shot. And your answer is "try to shoot first". *rolls eyes*

Have you been shot before or have seen gunshot wounds with your own eyes, kid? I'd guess the answer to be "No, I still live in the basement with my mum."

Let's see...you want eye shots to be lethal, don't believe bullets could be as incapacitating or crippling elsewhere, and then you want to whine about consistency? Holy shit, kid, you're a riot.

There's a reason why it's the way it is and isn't made realistic. It's because it becomes annoying to the player if they keep dying, as the character would have in MANY occasions if they went through your preferences in Fallout 1.

Of course, don't let that get in the way of your verbal masturbation and whining. It's obvious you haven't put much thought behind your first scrub onto the board, and I suppose you decided to quit after I tore your face apart in the post lower in this thread, which detailed another point where you jerked off your keyboard cluelessly.

Seems like you just want it made easy so your twinkish self could enjoy always killing everything with an eye shot at point-blank range, without fail. That's what it would result in, and such an exploit would rather ruin the game. But again, that's why the current damage model is used, or haven't you bothered to get your two remaining neurons communicating and how long can we expect to wait until they warm up?

>I would prefer
>a bit more realism, but
>being consistently not real would
>work too. Putting in Desert
>Eagles, M60s, FN FALs.., what
>were they thinking?

There's a reason why arrows aren't instantly lethal to alerted guards in Thief and Thief II. There's a reason why head shots do damage severely in JA2, but aren't completely incapacitating or lethal. Or why location shots don't always cripple an area.

Get a fucking clue, moron

>P.S.
>Do you talk to people like
>this face to face? I'm
>sick of your personal attacks.
>You have succeeded to drive
>me off.

Oh, dear. We've lost another clueless twit. Whatever will we do?

Feel thankful? You know we do.
 
And the Death match this week!!!! Easyrider vs Rosh....

Hey Rosh. I agree with you today. Here some note for Easyrider:
- More Realism: Hmmmm.... Isn't real world fighting not a Turn Based? What kind of Realism do you wan't from Turn Based if the Turn Based itself already not Realistic? So if you wanna Realism try real world not just playing RPGs???
- One shot one kill: Okay?? Tell me about an incident 4 years ago when polices in USA shot ONE MAN 20 times with his Berretta and Colt .38 before those guys dead? Or one Navy Seals shot a hail of Buckshot from his Shotgun emptying his magazine before his enemy down??? Or a Marine Machinegunner Riddle a VC Saboteur with M-60 for at least 15 rounds before he fell???
- Well in turn based if this thing real that's mean: (example: player vs Raiders gang.)
- round one: Player hit Raider with .223 pistol in the head, Raider Head blew...
- round two: The Next Raider blew player head. GAME OVER....

Phew.... When i'm gonna finish Fallout3????
- No miss when Firing Shotgun from point blank..... Okay, what if a bee stung your head then you scream, point your gun upside and blew your own head??? Remember! There always an "X" factor....

And Romeo Told his beloved Juliet: Kulo Tresno Karo Sampeyan.....
 
>However, in some cases like lockpicking,
>science, and repair, this makes
>sense. If you don't
>know how to repair things,
>pick locks, or have a
>foundation in science, how could
>you "brush up on them"
>and advance through leveling up?
>
>
>A tribal with a significant science
>skill? WTF?
>
>Lockpicking? How the hell did
>they learn that? It's
>not an easy skill.
>
>Repair? Repair what in Arroyo?
> A damn ROCK?


That's the point.

To XpatrickX : i never said you shouldn't have some skills. Of course you are going to start off with some, just not all. I always thought it weird that a tribal from Arroyo could use a highly advanced energy weapon (fire licking tribe warriors comes to mind). It's more than just pulling to trigger you know. Doesn't the discription of the gun skills state that it's used for the mantanance and use of blabla ?

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
>It's more than just pulling to trigger you know<


Well...not a WHOLE lot more.
 
1
A. No problem there
B. "... the new game would be completely 3D in a first/third person engine..." - well, ain't it just another tomb raider?
" The Character's skill with the gun will determine how well he/she shoots, not the players skill with the mouse and keyboard" - it already does!
C. " .THE FALLOUT TACTICS SYSTEM WAS TRIED AND IT FAILED. THIS SYSTEM WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN" - huh? Dare I ask, how did that failed? I use it in Arcanum and it goes pretty well!
D. Was bound to happen!
E. Yesssssssss!

"My question to you is simple. Would a game with such changes be accepted by the fallout community. We obviously want to please our fan base but we also want to open the fallout universe to a new audience - IT CAN'T BE DONE, most loyal Fallot fans won't accept it, so probably the masses will win! Go ahead and make (yet) another game for brainless idiots...

2. Well, I did't really "disliked" Tactics, it just disappointed me a little. A,B & C are true however. Only one thing you forgot - FOT IS NOT Fallout.

3. There is nothing I would like to see, but more of " I would NOT like to see"
So here goes:
- NO ROTATING CAMERA/ZOOM IN & OUT - see Neverwinter Nights/Dungeon Siege - there could be a middle way here.
- NO MULTIPLAYER - a caprice of the morons taht play Quake/UT etc.
- NO 3D - it actually looks much better without, oh, and don.t go like " hey, this guy is probably an old guy with a slow computer" - not the case.

That's it!
 
Ok, so u are asking if we would like a 3d fallout, without turnbased combat , rotating cameras , zooms , sims elements in your party (maybe even your own house and pets)?
Does it cost that much to make what we want?Didn't Interplay make enough money with their other RPGS(?) to afford to sacrifice a little money to create another Rare Flower , like Fallout?Don't u even think about prestige or company image anymore?Don't u guys remember the early days when games were made out of fun and most of them still live as legends today?Does "BY GAMERS FOR GAMERS" mean nothing in the End?
FOT was no Fallout , but i played the demo and said to myself that i would be more than satisfied if the future fallout 3 would have a graphics like that, maybe 3d characters but 2d isomethrical core if u understand(if not check out STATIC).
I don't want to tell , all u need fr fallout 3 is what made the other 2 what they are (a diffrent experience) with a bit of graphical revision (i mean from 2d-8bit to 2d-24bit not full 3d)a kick ass story and a bit more flexibility (like choosing a race) the rest , we don't care about really but mind me , if u take the turn based combat out u will lose all the fans of the original series.
I hope Fallout 3 will be what we expect it , but if not i think we can get togheter(i think we can fin 10-20 guys here with good computer skills and a little free time) and make it ourselves!!!
 
>A: The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system was to
>get a slight upgrade. As
>well as projectile weapons being
>re-catagorized to 'Pistol', 'Rifle' and
>'Heavy'.
>
Makes sence, because you can shoot a handgun you can't necessarily shoot a rifle. And rifle and heavy weapon handling aren't the same. But does this mean there are no more energy weapons?

>B: The most controversial change would
>be that the new game
>would be completely 3D in
>a first/third person engine. IT
>WOULD NOT HOWEVER BE A
>FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The Character's
>skill with the gun will
>determine how well he/she shoots,
>not the players skill with
>the mouse and keyboard. That
>would be ridiculous. The game
>must remain an RPG after
>all.
>
Controversial... I think there is enough technological progress to make the change to 3D worth it, as long as they keep the super nostalgical setting of the prevois Fo's, so the same 'feeling' is there. I would love to see all those actions in 3D, and maybe even switching from 3rd to 1st person mode (see Dungeon Keeper, and some weird strategy game with Machines in it... great potential)

>C: Also controversially the game would
>no longer be conventionally turn
>based. I say conventionally as
>it would run with a
>similar system to that of
>the 'Baldurs gate' games. They
>aren’t turn based but each
>action takes a certain amount
>of time and that time
>varies depending on the characters
>speed for that action. THE
>FALLOUT TACTICS SYSTEM WAS TRIED
>AND IT FAILED. THIS SYSTEM
>WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN.
>
Now THIS is really controversial. Ok, it had quite some bugs and wasn't always "correct", but it is (was ;'( ) the fallout way, and the fans love it. Well, progress catches up with us I guess...
>
>D: Much deeper interaction with NPC's
>especially those in your party.
>Including loyalty issues among team
>members and even possible romantic
>involvement.
>
What's wrong with this? I encourage it...

>E: The game would have the
>same level of violence and
>sex as the previous games
>but some of the effects
>would be upgraded/changed.
>
Also good, maybe inplement 4 or so grades of volience, and hardcode only 2 or 3 levels in UK games, looking out for VOILENCE / CHILDREN RELATED QUEST. thank you.

>My question to you is simple.
>Would a game with such
>changes be accepted by the
>fallout community. We obviously want
>to please our fan base
>but we also want to
>open the fallout universe to
>a new audience.
>
Well, see above. I would happily take all those good changes at teh cost of loss of any nostalgical thoughts about the first two Fo's, if only the Fallout 'feeling' never stops. The hidden jokes, all those easter eggs, volence, cynicism, ...

>2.What did you dislike about fallout
>tactics the most. Was it..
>
FOt is NOT FO, FO2 and I think FO3 isn't FOT. I loke the real Fallout series. Wrong about FOt : it isn't FO3. It doesn't feel like FO. It's faster (not so many random things to find), I can't sit back and smoke one while thinking over a map. I like my game calm and intelligent, not fast-paced squad-based .

A: The story was incosistent with numerous errors. -&-
C: That it was linear and
mission based instead of location
>based like the other fallout
>games.
>
>3. What is the one single
>feature you would like to
>see in a third fallout
>game. e.g. player weapon modification.

sorry, a few, but I think all agree : some old (good) + new CORRECT weapons (with more correct calibres, manufacturers -don't mix H&K and FN up-, correct ranges, ...);
NO BUGS (let some hardcore Fallout-ppz test-run early versions if u wish, enough volunteers here I guess);
and the creators spending enough time so they can deliver a finished product, in stead of a bug-pested game with lots of unimplemented area's, speech and such.

>
If u ever want weapon stats (this goes far, it's a hobby of mine) or any other info, or whatever info, or have more questions, feel free to mail : Boer_kameeL@hotmail.com .
 
OK, I'm finally back for more. Nothing like stirring up an old argument :p

(I won't answer Roshambo unless he quits using the cheap personal attacks, though.)

>- More Realism: Hmmmm.... Isn't real
>world fighting not a Turn
>Based? What kind of Realism
>do you wan't from Turn
>Based if the Turn Based
>itself already not Realistic? So
>if you wanna Realism try
>real world not just playing
>RPGs???

I'm not looking for realism, I'm looking for immersion. It's not quite the same. Turn based combat has its problems, but it's far better than most real-time I've seen. Fun, immersion and intelligent gameplay is what counts. Realism means nothing in itself.

>- One shot one kill: Okay??
>Tell me about an incident
>4 years ago when polices
>in USA shot ONE MAN
>20 times with his Berretta
>and Colt .38 before those
>guys dead? Or one Navy
>Seals shot a hail of
>Buckshot from his Shotgun emptying
>his magazine before his enemy
>down??? Or a Marine Machinegunner
>Riddle a VC Saboteur with
>M-60 for at least 15
>rounds before he fell???

I'll bet none of those people had their brains dissolved or their spines severed. Anyway, in a realistic game, combatants would use cover extensively and very few shots would be deadly. It's hard to hit well, especially when you're peeing your pants because of all the bullets whizzling around your head (no offense to people who have experienced combat :)

>- Well in turn based if
>this thing real that's mean:
>(example: player vs Raiders gang.)
>
> - round one:
>Player hit Raider with .223
>pistol in the head, Raider
>Head blew...
> - round two:
>The Next Raider blew player
>head. GAME OVER....
>
> Phew.... When i'm gonna
>finish Fallout3????

Do you know how hard it is to shoot a moving guy in the eyes? I can only imagine. Head shots should be pretty devastating too, but my experience with Fallout suggests there would be a lot of misses. You could also bias the rules in favour of the player if the game gets too hard. I don't think he would complain about it being unfair.

>- No miss when Firing Shotgun
>from point blank..... Okay, what
>if a bee stung your
>head then you scream, point
>your gun upside and blew
>your own head??? Remember! There
>always an "X" factor....

I believe critical failures capture this nicely, although I hate it when they happen to me. My complaint is that the designers set an arbitrary limit to how often you can hit. I don't see why a master marksman should miss 5 % of the time, even when firing at an immobile target at point blank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top