Fallout 3 not silly

[God is Dog backwards]

I still think blinding someone gives rise to lots of tactical possibilities and nice variation in combat, and the gibbing argument doesn't quite make sense. Some weapons would gib them, but, say in melee combat, a lunge for the eyes wouldn't make the head all explodered.

 

[SuAside]

I can see the logic in taking out eye shots. I mean, how often does a bullet destroy an eyeball and not the brain inches away from it? That, to me, is an acceptable loss.

BB gun? unarmed? melee?

not everything is a bigass bullet, ye know.

also, if you're facing a powerarmored mean mofo, it totally makes sense to go for the visor (most likely one of the weakest spots).

 

[Sorrow]

If Fallout was as realistic as, say, Operation Flashpoint I think combat would be much more fast and (oh irony) boring.

What are you basing this assumption on?

I liked FO's combat. If people would die from 1-2 shots it'd be kind of too fast.

I prefer when combat is reasonably deadly - i.e. when a firefight isn't a boxing match. I find overdependance on random criticals less tactical and more frustrating.
Also, combat in Operation Flashpoint wasn't fast and boring. It involved more tactics outside the mere fact of firing a bullet.

Which makes me regret, they dropped GURPS -from what I heard it has a pretty realistic combat.

 

[Black]

If FO's combat priority was to get high initiative and the fire 1-2 shots to kill one person then it'd be boring for me ;d

 

[Puuk]

So lemme see if I got this straight. Groin shots border on the "silly," yet forearm mounted nuclear catapolts are not?

What little faith I had that F3 could turn out fun just choked and died from Emil's comments on what's "silly."

You know, it may not be PC that I'm a dev and I'm speaking out against this version of Fallout, but WTF? I'm a Fallout fan and I'm not liking what I'm seeing and reading. I gave Bethsoft the benefit of the doubt when it was announced that they were going to do the next Fallout, but everything I've read and seen has increased my doubt that they can make a true successor to Fallout. That faith just keeps dying with each new interview. *sigh*

 

[Puuk]

I can see the logic in taking out eye shots. I mean, how often does a bullet destroy an eyeball and not the brain inches away from it? That, to me, is an acceptable loss.

BB gun? unarmed? melee?

not everything is a bigass bullet, ye know.

also, if you're facing a powerarmored mean mofo, it totally makes sense to go for the visor (most likely one of the weakest spots).

True that.

And FUN trumps REALISM. I don't give a rat's ass if something is realistic in a game. I care if it makes the game fun. And if having the tactical option of shooting out the eye or blasting the groin adds to my fun within the game, then mission accomplished. I don't care about the liklihood of it being realistic. For crissakes, this is a 1950's bend on a post apocalyptic world with mutants running around. How much realism do we really need?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

All I can say is thank heaven for Stranglehold. Groin shots have never been so funny.

 

[Per]

Attacking "realism" is too easy, though. Better talk about believability.

 

[SuAside]

And FUN trumps REALISM. I don't give a rat's ass if something is realistic in a game. I care if it makes the game fun. And if having the tactical option of shooting out the eye or blasting the groin adds to my fun within the game, then mission accomplished. I don't care about the liklihood of it being realistic.

right. it's just fun to hit a mouse in the groin with a sledgehammer, or to hit a brahmin in the cunt with a cattleprod...
(not that i ever did either, i'm not a very melee overkill-style guy. but i appreciate the fun factor of knowing i could.)

For crissakes, this is a 1950's bend on a post apocalyptic world with mutants running around. How much realism do we really need?

enough to get rid of nukularcutapultz, if you please

 

[Edge386]

Maybe they just don't know how to code blindness modifiers, and don't want to admit it.

 

[Autoduel76]

Maybe they just don't know how to code blindness modifiers, and don't want to admit it.

From what I understand blinding, and hitting the eye, are in the game.

Its just targeting the eye that's out. If you score a critical hit, while targeting the head, you have a chance of hitting the eye and blinding them.

 

[Edge386]

I was just taking cheap shots. They really should have ADDED called shot locations rather than removing. I'm more interested in hitting the shins, knee caps, ankles, throat, EAR even on top of the eyes groin, limbs, etc. The weapon shot is a weak attempt at staying above the water.

We live in a new age, and it is not the 90's rock and roll still rocks era we once knew.

 

[Sander]

From what I understand blinding, and hitting the eye, are in the game.

Its just targeting the eye that's out. If you score a critical hit, while targeting the head, you have a chance of hitting the eye and blinding them.

That would go completely against their reason for throwing out eye shots: eye hit = head go BOOM. That's mainly because of their magical extreeeeeeme view camera, that follows the bullet going through the head.
So no, this is not the case. I don't know where you get this from either.

 

[Autoduel76]

From what I understand blinding, and hitting the eye, are in the game.

Its just targeting the eye that's out. If you score a critical hit, while targeting the head, you have a chance of hitting the eye and blinding them.

That would go completely against their reason for throwing out eye shots: eye hit = head go BOOM. That's mainly because of their magical extreeeeeeme view camera, that follows the bullet going through the head.
So no, this is not the case. I don't know where you get this from either.

Semantics. They said that scoring a critical hit with a bullet to the eyeball would "gib the whole head".

They also said that critical hits to the head would have chances to cause effects of a knock out, or blindness.

eyeball is not the same thing as the are of the eye which would include the whole orbital lobe.

 

[Sander]

Semantics. They said that scoring a critical hit with a bullet to the eyeball would "gib the whole head".

'Semantics'? Seriously, what? That's not 'semantics', that's 'Hey, they said that shooting the head makes the head go boom'.

They also said that critical hits to the head would have chances to cause effects of a knock out, or blindness.

Exact quote, please.

eyeball is not the same thing as the are of the eye which would include the whole orbital lobe.

And if they did approach it like this, then their original explanation for taking out eye-shots makes no sense whatsoever. They said 'if you shoot someone in the eye, then the head should explode anyway'. So if you shoot someone around the eyes, why wouldn't the explode then?

 

[Autoduel76]

Semantics. They said that scoring a critical hit with a bullet to the eyeball would "gib the whole head".

'Semantics'? Seriously, what? That's not 'semantics', that's 'Hey, they said that shooting the head makes the head go boom'.

No they didn't say "shooting the head make the head go boom". They said a critical hit on a bullet through the eye will gib the head anyway..

eyeball is not the same thing as the are of the eye which would include the whole orbital lobe.

And if they did approach it like this, then their original explanation for taking out eye-shots makes no sense whatsoever. They said 'if you shoot someone in the eye, then the head should explode anyway'. So if you shoot someone around the eyes, why wouldn't the explode then?

You really don't see the difference? Just think about it for a second. The eye is a soft-tissued opening to your brain. The oribital lobe has bone that can protect your brain from being hit. Hitting the orbital lobe, eye socket, and surrounding area can cause swelling that will effectively shut your eyes and impair your vision. Hitting the eyeball itself, isn't going to slow down a bullet enough to prevent it from entering into your brain.

 

[Brother None]

The fact that bullets rarely hit the eye at a straight angle and that there are many weapons that are not bullets (plasma guns, laser rifles? I don't know their penetration, do you?) makes your argument invalid.

Also, you dodged Sander's original remark; why would it make sense to have head-crits that hit the eye and blind the enemy while it doesn't make sense to have aiming for the eyes blind people? The "expansive argument" of "only eye-crits would gib the head" doesn't sound familiar to me*. Provide a quote, please.

* Nor would it make sense. There's no visual difference between a crit and a normal hit except in its effects, not it's actual hitting. The argument was that the VATS slo-mo made eye-hitting look bad, but a critical hit on the eye and a normal hit look the same, so the argument was they both look bad.

 

[Sander]

No they didn't say "shooting the head make the head go boom". They said a critical hit on a bullet through the eye will gib the head anyway..

Yes, now extrapolate. If shooting the eyes would make the head explode, and they removed the eye-shot for reasons of superfluence, then wouldn't a head shot also make the head explode? Why, yes it would. Because if that wouldn't happen, then they would've kept in eye shots.
Also, if eye shots always cause head explosions, but normal head shots do not, then why remove eye shots instead of making them more difficult to pull off?


Also, you have yet to provide a quote for the statement that you can blind people in combat. So I'm just going to assume you made that up, since it's completely unfamiliar.

You really don't see the difference? Just think about it for a second. The eye is a soft-tissued opening to your brain. The oribital lobe has bone that can protect your brain from being hit. Hitting the orbital lobe, eye socket, and surrounding area can cause swelling that will effectively shut your eyes and impair your vision. Hitting the eyeball itself, isn't going to slow down a bullet enough to prevent it from entering into your brain.

Are you kidding me?
Their argument was purely aesthetic. They said that players would expect the head to explode if they hit the eyes. Now, if you're then going to argue realism, heads don't bloody well explode when hit with a bullet in the first place.
They argue from a player expectation perspective, not a realism one. When a player hits an enemy in the eyes, they expect the enemie to die. The exact same thing goes for a shot to the head, since headshots are deadly in every single game that features them.

Yes, I know that headshots can glance across a temple or the like. But hey, *so can eye shots*.

 

[Autoduel76]

Also, you dodged Sander's original remark; why would it make sense to have head-crits that hit the eye and blind the enemy while it doesn't make sense to have aiming for the eyes blind people? The "expansive argument" of "only eye-crits would gib the head" doesn't sound familiar to me*. Provide a quote, please.

How was that a doge at all? I explained it exactly.

As for the quote. Here, from Briosafreak's blog

http://fallout3.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/massive-e3-fallout-3-post/

Groin/Eye shots?

They figure that a crit on the eye will gib the head anwyays so probably leaving that out. Groin shot is a maybe.

The fact that bullets rarely hit the eye at a straight angle and that there are many weapons that are not bullets (plasma guns, laser rifles? I don't know their penetration, do you?) makes your argument invalid....


...* Nor would it make sense. There's no visual difference between a crit and a normal hit except in its effects, not it's actual hitting. The argument was that the VATS slo-mo made eye-hitting look bad, but a critical hit on the eye and a normal hit look the same, so the argument was they both look bad.

These two paragraphs should be answered together. There's no visual difference between a crit and a normal hit, you say. In reality that's not true. The type of hits you are describing in your first paragraph, that don't hit a location at a straight angle (in this case the eye), would not be critical hits. A critical, by definition, would be a devastating strike, so it couldn't be a glancing blow or a graze.

But really, a ciritical hit isn't just a bullet that does more damage than another one while hitting the same location. Its a critical hit because you hit a critical area. That, in itself, does make targetting the eye kind of strange from that standpoint. The eye is a critical area of the head to hit and, pretty much by definition, a critical hit.

For what its worth, I would have liked them to keep eye targeting in the game. I did enjoy aiming there in the original games. I can understand the reason for not doing it, however.

The heart, lungs, kidney's...those are among the critical areas of the torso. If you score a critical hit on a torso, you should have hit an organ. You don't just hit somebody that magically does more damage, if it didn't strike a key area. A critical on an arm should have severed ligaments neccessary for moving that arm, or blown off a hand, or something. It's not just "Oh shit! for some unknown reason that bullet hurts me more than another one!"

And a critical on the head, just hit you in the eye, or your brain, or pierce your carotid artery.

Like I said, I'd rather they left eye targeting in. They are fun. I don't think things need to be realistic in games. But, to argue that what they are saying doesn't make sense, just isn't right.

 

[Wild_qwerty]

I'm 28 and I still find it amusing when somebody gets hit in the groin ... providing its not me...