Fallout 3. Logistics and acceptance.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-29-03 AT 06:09AM (GMT)[p]>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.)

I wonder why I even bother replying since you've obviously not achieved any more wits and intelligence.

>I'm not looking for realism, I'm
>looking for immersion. It's not
>quite the same.

And the above lie isn't quite the same load of shit you shoveled in your first post here. Go back and read it in case your experience isn't the only thing lacking and your memory is suffering as well. The post is still there, for fuck's sake. It doesn't take THAT much effort to avoid looking as stupid as you've just managed.

>(no offense to people who
>have experienced combat :)

Which, I would lay good money, excludes you.

>Do you know how hard it
>is to shoot a moving
>guy in the eyes? I
>can only imagine.

Yes, you can only imagine, much like the rest of your vapid arguments here. You have little to no clue about what you're attempting to blather on about. If you have sufficient skill, getting a targeted shot like that is incredibly easy, yet not at point blank. I'll explain later on, again, despite the fact that I've pointed out the facts of close range combat involving guns a number of times already.

>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.

Mostly, it is to account for a variety of possible factors that couldn't plausibly be implemented. Something else could be interfering with the shot, or any number of things.

Again, you're wanting to take an already cheap mode of gameplay (leg shots to drop, eye/head shots to kill) into an even MORE cheap method of gameplay.

There's something called GAME BALANCE. Learn what it means, Captain Clueless. I would appreciate it if you put some effort of thinking before you post again. Others would be appreciative if you had some clue about the design of Fallout as well.
 
>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,
>...

I would have to specify that they get some talent in crafting easter eggs and humor. Fallout had a dark world, the feeling was perfect. Fallout 2 was a bit too cheesy, since the easter eggs were idiotic in abundance. There is a talent in creating easter eggs; you make them as a tribute that does fit into the game as a nod. Making them a bit obscure is even better, since it takes a bit of digging, giving the player a sense of discovery and achievement. You don't really get that at the 300th blatant Monty Python reference that may have been perfectly planned*, but executed with Neolithic incompetence.

See how I crafted an easter egg into that? It fits in, but you'd need to have an understanding about where it's from in order to understand it and perhaps get a chuckle from it.

* - This is debatable in itself.

>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, ...);

Or, for the stronger setting, weapons with few real-world ties, certainly not the names of them. Perhaps they could have some new names? That has a good potential to suck if done wrong, however.

>NO BUGS (let some hardcore Fallout-ppz
>test-run early versions if u
>wish, enough volunteers here I
>guess);

Interplay = TEH BUGGZ! Their QA dept should be shot, if not for incompetence, then for no integrity.

>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.

See above. Expecting a quality product from Interplay lately could be equated to going down to Tijuana and having unprotected sex with a street hooker - and expecting to not catch anything.

>If u ever want weapon stats
>(this goes far, it's a
>hobby of mine) or any

No more RL weapons, or at least keep them to a minimum. Like in Fallout 1.
 
>But does this
>mean there are no more
>energy weapons?

It probably means that the energy weapons are part of the other categories. A laser pistol is a pistol, a gatling laser is heavy...

>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.

Even if they got the cabibres, manufacturers and ranges right, they would be nothing like the real weapons when used in combat. Giving associations to RL weapons in a game like Fallout is a bad idea IMO. They feel out of place, and generally disappointing if you know a bit about guns. I would prefer generic or made up weapons only.
 
>Even if they got the cabibres,
>manufacturers and ranges right, they
>would be nothing like the
>real weapons when used in
>combat. Giving associations to RL
>weapons in a game like
>Fallout is a bad idea
>IMO. They feel out of
>place, and generally disappointing if
>you know a bit about
>guns. I would prefer generic
>or made up weapons only.

[link:www.nma-fallout.com/cgi-bin/forum/index.cgi?az=show_thread&om=933&forum=ForumID5&omm=38|Oh, the irony.]
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-03 AT 09:40AM (GMT)[p]Maybe I should have pointed out in my first post that Fallout 2 would be more immersive if it didn't have all those "real" weapons. I just hate it when designers put in "real" objects because they are "cool", totally missing the problem that some people might get certain expectations when they see them. I don't need all games to be realistic. In fact I'm co-developing a totally unrealistic, but hopefully fun game right now as a college project.

(edit)
There could have been just one generic ammo type, too. The way it is now, the player is left scratching his head, wondering why AP seems to be no more effective against armored targets than JHP.

I would prefer more realism, if they could have kept the balance no worse than it already is, but I doubt it somehow. I see a lot of potential for an immersive experience in Fallout 2. And I don't see a problem with somewhat believable game rules in a dark world with vacuum tube computers and laser guns.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-03 AT 10:05AM (GMT)[p]>Maybe I should have pointed out
>in my first post that
>Fallout 2 would be more
>immersive if it didn't have
>all those "real" weapons.

And yet you also pointed out that it would be more "immersive" if it didn't have a PnP like system.

>I
>just hate it when designers
>put in "real" objects because
>they are "cool", totally missing
>the problem that some people
>might get certain expectations when
>they see them. I don't
>need all games to be
>realistic.

Again, the irony is staggering, given prior posts.


>(edit)
>There could have been just one
>generic ammo type, too. The
>way it is now, the
>player is left scratching his
>head, wondering why AP seems
>to be no more effective
>against armored targets than JHP.

On the contrary, AP is useless. Only against some hard targets like robots does AP have some effect, but JHP in the right places eliminates the need to switch to AP.

The variation of ammo type would be preferable if it were done like JA2, where the difficulty could be ramped in proportion of ammo scarcity (AP being possibly harder to make and thus more rare), leading to JHP ammo not being as effective yet still more plentiful.

>I would prefer more realism, if
>they could have kept the
>balance no worse than it
>already is, but I doubt
>it somehow. I see a
>lot of potential for an
>immersive experience in Fallout 2.
>And I don't see a
>problem with somewhat believable game
>rules in a dark world
>with vacuum tube computers and
>laser guns.

Game balance. If it were anything like you'd want, there'd be one way to take down enemies with even the simplest of firearms or weapons. Knock them down and go for eye/head shots. That's already pretty powerful as it is and dosn't need to become any more powerful. The current system does have a few flaws, but it's certainly more balanced than any of the shit Inbred Engine games or any other D&D game. That is mainly because D&D doesn't translate well to a CRPG environment; its progression is far too steep.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-03 AT 04:30PM (GMT)[p]>And yet you also pointed out
>that it would be more
>"immersive" if it didn't have
>a PnP like system.

Yes, that can be annoying as well. Some things seem artificial and could have been improved, e.g. the chance-to-hit system. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with PnP, some rules just seem unnecessarily simple in a computer game. It's not like I need to quickly find a chance by calculating in my head or looking up in a table.

>>The way it is now, the
>>player is left scratching his
>>head, wondering why AP seems
>>to be no more effective
>>against armored targets than JHP.
>
>On the contrary, AP is useless.
> Only against some hard
>targets like robots does AP
>have some effect, but JHP
>in the right places eliminates
>the need to switch to
>AP.

Where did I write that AP is useful? Against hard targets they seem to be about the same, and, needless to say, JHP is superior against soft targets.

>Game balance. If it were
>anything like you'd want, there'd
>be one way to take
>down enemies with even the
>simplest of firearms or weapons.
> Knock them down and
>go for eye/head shots.
>That's already pretty powerful as
>it is and dosn't need
>to become any more powerful.

(edit)
You could go for a lethal hit right away, try to drop him, try to make him lose his weapon, use burst fire or stand behind a corner and toss a grenade next to him. I agree it would be hard to balance, but that is true for any complex game.

What's wrong with being able to take down enemies with the simplest of weapons? You would still need perception, agility and the right skill. Better guns would still be better. Grenades would need to be completely redesigned, though. And I would like to allow strong players to disarm the opponent (as has been suggested on this board). There are also numerous other things that can be done to make a high strength more useful.

(edit)
I also think it would be very interesting to be able to take a sniper rifle or even a knife and have a fair chance to cleanly assassinate a poor, unsuspecting bastard. The way it is now, you can be sure it results in a messy battle unless your target has very few HPs.
 
>>And yet you also pointed out
>>that it would be more
>>"immersive" if it didn't have
>>a PnP like system.
>
>Yes, that can be annoying as
>well. Some things seem artificial
>and could have been improved,
>e.g. the chance-to-hit system. I'm
>not saying there's anything wrong
>with PnP, some rules just
>seem unnecessarily simple in a
>computer game. It's not like
>I need to quickly find
>a chance by calculating in
>my head or looking up
>in a table.


And yet again you totally miss the point of why Fallout was made the way it was. Yet, it still manages to be immersive for many other reasons.

>
>>>The way it is now, the
>>>player is left scratching his
>>>head, wondering why AP seems
>>>to be no more effective
>>>against armored targets than JHP.
>>
>>On the contrary, AP is useless.
>> Only against some hard
>>targets like robots does AP
>>have some effect, but JHP
>>in the right places eliminates
>>the need to switch to
>>AP.
>
>Where did I write that AP
>is useful?

In the way you originally wrote it, you implied it was just as effective as JHP in some occasions. Yet it currently is useless completely because it is a waste to carry.

>>Game balance. If it were
>>anything like you'd want, there'd
>>be one way to take
>>down enemies with even the
>>simplest of firearms or weapons.
>> Knock them down and
>>go for eye/head shots.
>>That's already pretty powerful as
>>it is and dosn't need
>>to become any more powerful.
>
>(edit)
>You could go for a lethal
>hit right away,

Yeah, why bother having to get him into a semi-defenseless state when you could make it lethal right away.

*rolls eyes*

>try to
>drop him, try to make
>him lose his weapon, use
>burst fire or stand behind
>a corner and toss a
>grenade next to him.

All of which would be a waste of time and resources compared to going for a chance for a lethal shot. Or the leg shot and "should be fatal" eye shot.

>I
>agree it would be hard
>to balance, but that is
>true for any complex game.

No, the way you want it, it would piss away any balance.

>What's wrong with being able to
>take down enemies with the
>simplest of weapons?

Oh, nice idea. </sarcasm>

It also begs the question of the frustration faction that would arise if it were balanced to the point where you were in turn vulnerable to the same

We've been through this before, and you still haven't proven that you have the slightest of clues in terms of game design or balance. Hell, you haven't even begun a decent sense of basic theory yet.

>You would
>still need perception, agility and
>the right skill.

Which is easy enough to cripple and kill someone, and now you're wanting it to be easier. Damn, get a clue.

>Better guns
>would still be better.

And even more cheesier given that you want basic weapons to be devastating....

>Grenades
>would need to be completely
>redesigned, though.

Other than just saying that for the sake of it, what point and reason do you have for the above?

>And I would
>like to allow strong players
>to disarm the opponent (as
>has been suggested on this
>board). There are also numerous
>other things that can be
>done to make a high
>strength more useful.

Yes, pretty much like Jagged Alliance 2.

>(edit)
>I also think it would be
>very interesting to be able
>to take a sniper rifle
>or even a knife and
>have a fair chance to
>cleanly assassinate a poor, unsuspecting
>bastard. The way it is
>now, you can be sure
>it results in a messy
>battle unless your target has
>very few HPs.

Then you need a clue in how to get a good enough small guns skill for killing someone. It is insanely possible to kill someone far off with a long range gun in one shot.

There's also a reason why there were no silent kills or extremely long-distance and undetectable sniper kills available in the middle of others. Again, it goes into the basics of game balance, plus also along why pugilism fits into the setting and Jackie Chan doesn't. Slitting someone's throat wasn't considered popular in that time, instead leading to straight-forward and face-to-face knife fights in fighting standoffs as depicted in Flash Gordon. For those too young, Indiana Jones was done in the style of serials of the time period from which Fallout was borrowed from.

Please try a little harder than Phad_Vickers to piece together the clues before you try to reply next.
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Feb-07-03 AT 01:42PM (GMT)[p]To easyraider:

Long is it since i posted anything on these boards, but I must agree with Rosh on this, me myself learning that he keeps track of more fallout history than most people here... ( Hey Rosh, remember our old FO FpS debate...? You were right, in aftersight it was a sucky idea)

And his points were good, so if you don't get th realisn you want go play new world order or something and stop srwing the fallout games over...
 
[updated:LAST EDITED ON Feb-28-03 AT 00:24AM (GMT)]>>You could go for a lethal
>>hit right away,
>
>Yeah, why bother having to get him into a semi-defenseless
>state when you could make it lethal right away.
>
>*rolls eyes*

Because it's very hard to get a lethal hit just like that?

>>try to
>>drop him, try to make
>>him lose his weapon, use
>>burst fire or stand behind
>>a corner and toss a
>>grenade next to him.
>
>All of which would be a waste of time and resources compared
>to going for a chance for a lethal shot. Or the leg shot
>and "should be fatal" eye shot.

See above.

>>I
>>agree it would be hard
>>to balance, but that is
>>true for any complex game.
>
>No, the way you want it, it would piss away any balance.
>

Whatever.

>>What's wrong with being able to
>>take down enemies with the
>>simplest of weapons?
>
>Oh, nice idea. </sarcasm>
>
>It also begs the question of the frustration faction that
>would arise if it were balanced to the point where you were
>in turn vulnerable to the same

Frustration, or rather suspense and sense of danger? However, I can understand that many like to be able to walk around without constantly having to watch out and evaluate possible threats.

>>Better guns
>>would still be better.
>
>And even more cheesier given that you want basic weapons to
>be devastating....

Only devastating in very skilled hands. If a pistol requires an eye shot, and a minigun a burst generally on target, is that so bad?

>>Grenades
>>would need to be completely
>>redesigned, though.
>
>Other than just saying that for the sake of it, what point
>and reason do you have for the above?

Game balance.

>[...] Slitting
>someone's throat wasn't considered popular in that time,
>instead leading to straight-forward and face-to-face knife
>fights in fighting standoffs as depicted in Flash Gordon.
>For those too young, Indiana Jones was done in the style of
>serials of the time period from which Fallout was borrowed
>from.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I guess I'm too young.
 
>>>You could go for a lethal
>>>hit right away,
>>
>>Yeah, why bother having to get him into a semi-defenseless
>>state when you could make it lethal right away.
>>
>>*rolls eyes*
>
>Because it's very hard to get a lethal hit just like that?

You had earlier said that it would be better if people died if they were shot in the eyes. Along that, people shot in the head would share a similar fate. Along that, people would suffer much more "realistic" damage if they were hit in places, turning it into an easy cheesefest if it only affects the enemies, a lesson in frustration if it's going to affect the player as well.

Throughout your whole "contribution" to this thread, you've proven only that you have a poor sense of game design and may be capable of using a browser.

>
>>>try to
>>>drop him, try to make
>>>him lose his weapon, use
>>>burst fire or stand behind
>>>a corner and toss a
>>>grenade next to him.
>>
>>All of which would be a waste of time and resources compared
>>to going for a chance for a lethal shot. Or the leg shot
>>and "should be fatal" eye shot.
>
>See above.

Funny, your "reply" here is about as devoid of content and relevence as your previous tidbit.

>>>I
>>>agree it would be hard
>>>to balance, but that is
>>>true for any complex game.
>>
>>No, the way you want it, it would piss away any balance.
>>
>
>Whatever.

I sense a trend with another fellow who liked to say the same thing.

>>>What's wrong with being able to
>>>take down enemies with the
>>>simplest of weapons?
>>
>>Oh, nice idea. </sarcasm>
>>
>>It also begs the question of the frustration faction that
>>would arise if it were balanced to the point where you were
>>in turn vulnerable to the same
>
>Frustration, or rather suspense and sense of danger?
>However, I can understand that many like to be able to walk
>around without constantly having to watch out and evaluate
>possible threats.

As I've pointed out already, there's a difference between danger and having to reload because something took you out in one shot.

>>>Grenades
>>>would need to be completely
>>>redesigned, though.
>>
>>Other than just saying that for the sake of it, what point
>>and reason do you have for the above?
>
>Game balance.

Now that is funny. What do you suggest? Making them weaker so they don't have as much effect as the insta-lethal gunshots to the eyes, or even more lethal than they already are?


>>[...] Slitting
>>someone's throat wasn't considered popular in that time,
>>instead leading to straight-forward and face-to-face knife
>>fights in fighting standoffs as depicted in Flash Gordon.
>>For those too young, Indiana Jones was done in the style of
>>serials of the time period from which Fallout was borrowed
>>from.
>
>Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I guess I'm too young.

Obviously. And you're also an obvious waste of time and bandwidth.

You've been "downsized".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top