G
Guest
Guest
You are missing a very important point. *spoils*
I enjoy dissecting a message argument by argument as much as the next man, but you were already going *way* off topic, so I've decided to post arguments in paragraph form instead. This is not a concession on ANY of my previous arguments; it is a clarification and refocus.
Although combat is very important in FO, it was never intended to be the entire game, and playing it as such is nothing short of a waste of money. There is so much depth to both games that I highly recommend playing them with as many different types of characters as possible; I guarantee that you'll be surprised at what you find.
Like most aspects of FO, combat does have a lot of depth(NOTE: depth NOT realism). After all, the game has numerous modifiers on to-hit chance, including AC and environmental conditions such as light, three different types of modifiers on armor that relate entirely to combat effectiveness, and damage modifications on both guns and ammo, not to mention the ability to target specific areas of your opponent's body. The game supports many different types of fighting, as well. It's possible to play through both games focusing on one type of weapon (unarmed only characters are very fun) and you can do very well with any of the weapon types, with the possible exception of thrown. I've played tactical games that lack this level of complexity and there is a lot left that I haven't touched on.
However, the only way to give so much choice to the player is to sacrifice realism for game balance. After all, it hardly seems likely that a player focusing on unarmed could do as well, or possibly even better than, a player focusing on Small Arms, but, thanks to game balance, we have that option, even if it isn't totally realistic. It also seems unlikely that a player could be a master with an energy weapon before he even sees one in the game, but if you're willing to spend the points, you can do that, too. With so many options to choose from, it won't matter to most players that a shotgun is less effective than a pair of spiked knuckles.
Indeed, FO has much to offer in terms of combat, but there is so much more to both games than just combat. If one was so inclined, one could play through both of the games without ever actively participating in any combats. You can literally talk your way through the games without ever touching a weapon. On the other end of the spectrum, you can play an absolute moron, and still receive benefits. If you're stupid enough, the guards outside the vault in Vault City think you're a servant sent to clean. Likewise, Matt in San Francisco will take care of getting tanker fuel if you're not bright enough to do so yourself. There are also many opportunities to put skills such as doctor, science, repair and subterfuge to good use. With so much to offer players, I can't imagine why anyone would play FO for combat alone.
In the end, a realistic damage system hardly seems worth the cost. Can you imagine the delay FO3 would experience? It's probably not coming out til 2005 as it is, but, if BIS tried to develope a completely new combat system, I could easily see it being released in 2007 or even 2008. Not to mention the cost in terms of gameplay choices. No longer would the player be able to do as well with unarmed as with small guns. The first band of raiders he/she comes across will butcher him/her. And diplomats would suffer, too. In FO1&2, you can always haul ass if all else fails, but if a single shotgun shell is all that's needed to kill you, then you're SOL no matter what.
The other option would be to elimate guns from the majority of the game(Which I mentioned earlier and you happily ignored). Of course, this still places many limits on the player as gunslingers would be unable to play the desired character type for most of the game, and those who enjoy uber weapons would suffer without a rocket launcher or turbo plasma rifle(Most likely for the entire game). Of course, by the time guns were acquired, most combat characters would be too well developed for melee/unarmed to consider switching weapon types so late in the game. It really isn't worth it even to try such a system.
When I consider everything involved in trying to add a realistic damage system into a game not intended to be a realistic combat sim, it seems completely ludicrous to attempt such a folly. I don't believe you can justify such a system in FO3, so you might as well give up.
-Doyle "You can't spell 'Jesus' without 'Playstation 2'."*
*You can
I enjoy dissecting a message argument by argument as much as the next man, but you were already going *way* off topic, so I've decided to post arguments in paragraph form instead. This is not a concession on ANY of my previous arguments; it is a clarification and refocus.
Although combat is very important in FO, it was never intended to be the entire game, and playing it as such is nothing short of a waste of money. There is so much depth to both games that I highly recommend playing them with as many different types of characters as possible; I guarantee that you'll be surprised at what you find.
Like most aspects of FO, combat does have a lot of depth(NOTE: depth NOT realism). After all, the game has numerous modifiers on to-hit chance, including AC and environmental conditions such as light, three different types of modifiers on armor that relate entirely to combat effectiveness, and damage modifications on both guns and ammo, not to mention the ability to target specific areas of your opponent's body. The game supports many different types of fighting, as well. It's possible to play through both games focusing on one type of weapon (unarmed only characters are very fun) and you can do very well with any of the weapon types, with the possible exception of thrown. I've played tactical games that lack this level of complexity and there is a lot left that I haven't touched on.
However, the only way to give so much choice to the player is to sacrifice realism for game balance. After all, it hardly seems likely that a player focusing on unarmed could do as well, or possibly even better than, a player focusing on Small Arms, but, thanks to game balance, we have that option, even if it isn't totally realistic. It also seems unlikely that a player could be a master with an energy weapon before he even sees one in the game, but if you're willing to spend the points, you can do that, too. With so many options to choose from, it won't matter to most players that a shotgun is less effective than a pair of spiked knuckles.
Indeed, FO has much to offer in terms of combat, but there is so much more to both games than just combat. If one was so inclined, one could play through both of the games without ever actively participating in any combats. You can literally talk your way through the games without ever touching a weapon. On the other end of the spectrum, you can play an absolute moron, and still receive benefits. If you're stupid enough, the guards outside the vault in Vault City think you're a servant sent to clean. Likewise, Matt in San Francisco will take care of getting tanker fuel if you're not bright enough to do so yourself. There are also many opportunities to put skills such as doctor, science, repair and subterfuge to good use. With so much to offer players, I can't imagine why anyone would play FO for combat alone.
In the end, a realistic damage system hardly seems worth the cost. Can you imagine the delay FO3 would experience? It's probably not coming out til 2005 as it is, but, if BIS tried to develope a completely new combat system, I could easily see it being released in 2007 or even 2008. Not to mention the cost in terms of gameplay choices. No longer would the player be able to do as well with unarmed as with small guns. The first band of raiders he/she comes across will butcher him/her. And diplomats would suffer, too. In FO1&2, you can always haul ass if all else fails, but if a single shotgun shell is all that's needed to kill you, then you're SOL no matter what.
The other option would be to elimate guns from the majority of the game(Which I mentioned earlier and you happily ignored). Of course, this still places many limits on the player as gunslingers would be unable to play the desired character type for most of the game, and those who enjoy uber weapons would suffer without a rocket launcher or turbo plasma rifle(Most likely for the entire game). Of course, by the time guns were acquired, most combat characters would be too well developed for melee/unarmed to consider switching weapon types so late in the game. It really isn't worth it even to try such a system.
When I consider everything involved in trying to add a realistic damage system into a game not intended to be a realistic combat sim, it seems completely ludicrous to attempt such a folly. I don't believe you can justify such a system in FO3, so you might as well give up.
-Doyle "You can't spell 'Jesus' without 'Playstation 2'."*
*You can
