Fallout - John Woo style

[Azael]

Killzig started a thread on the Interplay FOBOS boards where he demanded the removal of pistol akimbo from the game. I have a diametral opinion and think that dual-wielding pistols is one thing that should be included in Fallout 3 and here's why:

* It makes pistols useful for a longer period in the game. I for one think that the gunslinger character is fun as hell to play, but pistols simply don't cut it for the later stages of the game (in Fallout that is, Fallout 2's gauss pistol kicks ass).

* In a game where you can succesfully handle a minigun, I fail to see why firing two pistols at the same time would be impossible.

* It could provide new, interesting, combat rules, such as the ability to target two enemies at once.

Now, granted, a skill like this could easily be too powerful. I'd say that the main penaltie for using two guns would be losing the ability to make aimed shots, as well as getting a lower chance to hit and costing you one more AP compared to fire a single gun. The Strength requirement for the pistol should also be upped by at least one point. Perhaps there could be perks (Ambidextrious) related to this that would lower the to hit penalties.

I'd also say that you should be able to dual-wield most one-handed melee weapons, but that's another can of worms.

Comments, flames, death threats?

 

[Killzig]

Killzig started a thread on the Interplay FOBOS boards where he demanded the removal of pistol akimbo from the game. I have a diametral opinion and think that dual-wielding pistols is one thing that should be included in Fallout 3 and here's why:

* It makes pistols useful for a longer period in the game. I for one think that the gunslinger character is fun as hell to play, but pistols simply don't cut it for the later stages of the game (in Fallout that is, Fallout 2's gauss pistol kicks ass).

Why don't you just have the damage upped for the pistols? Like a Desert Eagle at close range should floor a baddy.

* In a game where you can succesfully handle a minigun, I fail to see why firing two pistols at the same time would be impossible.

Fair point. Though where do you draw the line? Am I going to be reading posts advocating the addition of doberman pinscher launchers that have killer bees in their mouths?

* It could provide new, interesting, combat rules, such as the ability to target two enemies at once.

And thus not really target either one accurately -- dumb.

Now, granted, a skill like this could easily be too powerful.

Targeting two people with one shot at the same AP cost or just one more and doing the same damage -- definitely a little overpowered.

I'd say that the main penaltie for using two guns would be losing the ability to make aimed shots, as well as getting a lower chance to hit and costing you one more AP compared to fire a single gun.

Arthur brought up an interesting way of implementing this over at the iply forums. Using the two guns to cause twice the damage in an up close encounter. I think that would be the ideal use. Not using two guns independently as you're suggesting.

The Strength requirement for the pistol should also be upped by at least one point. Perhaps there could be perks (Ambidextrious) related to this that would lower the to hit penalties.

I can agree with this.

I'd also say that you should be able to dual-wield most one-handed melee weapons, but that's another can of worms.

Comments, flames, death threats?

DIE!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Killzig started a thread on the Interplay FOBOS boards where he demanded the removal of pistol akimbo from the game. I have a diametral opinion and think that dual-wielding pistols is one thing that should be included in Fallout 3 and here's why:

* It makes pistols useful for a longer period in the game. I for one think that the gunslinger character is fun as hell to play, but pistols simply don't cut it for the later stages of the game (in Fallout that is, Fallout 2's gauss pistol kicks ass).

Grab the One-Hander Trait if you want pistols to be more useful. With a decent perception and One-Hander, you can take nearly any pistol and shoot people's eyes out from across the map.

* In a game where you can succesfully handle a minigun, I fail to see why firing two pistols at the same time would be impossible.

You have an excellent point.. A damned fine, grade-A genius point... Until someone mentions reloading. That also means interface issues.

* It could provide new, interesting, combat rules, such as the ability to target two enemies at once.

So could adding the ability to strap feral animals on long poles and slap the enemy with them. That doesn't make it a good idea.

I'd also say that you should be able to dual-wield most one-handed melee weapons, but that's another can of worms.

Tell you what, when you can find me an old Flash Gordon serial where ole' Flash Gordon is John Wooing his guns, I'll say it's cool for the setting.

 

[Roshambo]

Pretty much doesn't fit into the setting, ,exactly.

That's what Chucklehead and the Digital Morons are doing, along with the thongs and other aspects like trench coats. They're following into modern pop-culture design of what would be "cool", preferring instead to be pissing all over the style and setting of the Fallout universe. Which is really stupid since it would be the Fallout universe that would be different than all the other games, so then it would stand out.

"D'uh...but dey like thongs, bewbies, and other cool stuff...so let's put it in! It will be a hit!"

I swear, that is some mantra sung at Interplay ("It will be a hit!") to brainwash the people there into a fine state of post-birth mental retardation. It's obviously affected Chuck Cuervos and his team.

The bloody retards don't get it that they're getting this flak because they're completely skullfucking the game and setting.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yup, no kidding. I wonder if it occured to them that maybe.. Just maybe.. The reason they have a setting to whore out in the first place is because someone else took the time to do it right originally. That's what Titus and Interplay don't get at all. The reason they're in the shitter is because they focus too much on WHUZ KEWL rather than careful craftsmanship.

 

[Odin]

But the marketing people are always correct, I can't understand it..

What's funny is that the marketing people didn't stop to see that this has all been tried before (as in X-Com and other titles) and failed miserably. Thanks to the marketing people who figured out that going 3D in X-Com would be a great idea, we now no longer have this great title or the prospect of getting a new X-Com game.

 

[Jinxed]

Thanks to the marketing people who figured out that going 3D in X-Com would be a great idea, we now no longer have this great title or the prospect of getting a new X-Com game.

That's not entirely true, check this out.

 

[Roshambo]

Thanks to the marketing people who figured out that going 3D in X-Com would be a great idea, we now no longer have this great title or the prospect of getting a new X-Com game.

That's not entirely true, check this out.

1. That is not an X-COM game, despite it using the Euro prefix used for it (UFO).
2. X-COM fans, those who would be the prime audience for it, ,are turning their noses up in majority because iUIFO: Aftermath is going for some shitty real-time thing.

 

[Jinxed]

My friend, that's why I said "not entirely".
Also, as far as I know, those people that are making UFO: Aftermath, are the same ones responsible for Apocalypse.

2. X-COM fans, those who would be the prime audience for it, ,are turning their noses up in majority because iUIFO: Aftermath is going for some shitty real-time thing

Gameplay highlights include:
Simultaneous turn-based combat: combines the best of the real-time and turn-based combat systems;

It doesn't state exactly what this is. It's rather confusing.
I'm one of those people who hasn't dropped the hatchet on this title just yet... But if it will be the worst case scenario real time crap I'm not even going to touch it.

Edit: HAHAHAHA, I just read on their boards that their unique system is like the BG infinite engine! Pause and issue orders! YAY!!

*Adds it to the list of games to avoid

 

[Odin]

My friend, that's why I said "not entirely".
Also, as far as I know, those people that are making UFO: Aftermath, are the same ones responsible for Apocalypse.

I believe they have only one person that worked on Apocalypse, and hell that game sucked.. The two first X-Com games are the best..

 

[Roshambo]

Edit: HAHAHAHA, I just read on their boards that their unique system is like the BG infinite engine! Pause and issue orders! YAY!!

Yes, their "unique" system is just like the "CTB" of FOT. Nothing more than a marketing ploy.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Edit: HAHAHAHA, I just read on their boards that their unique system is like the BG infinite engine! Pause and issue orders! YAY!!

There's a few anonymous posts by me on there in the really big turn based thread bashing them for saying their Pause and Play combat is unique. I didn't really feel like registering to make a long winded "My 2 Cents" post on there, so it's anonymous.

 

[Jinxed]

There's a few anonymous posts by me on there in the really big turn based thread bashing them for saying their Pause and Play combat is unique. I didn't really feel like registering to make a long winded "My 2 Cents" post on there, so it's anonymous.

I've noticed that their moderator takes care of the bashing to some degree...
I've read things like "Jim, it's too late to change it to turn based mode now" stated by the devs.

What made them use the pause and issue orders in the first place? alcohol? Drugs? Or just being inbred morons?

 

[Azael]

Why don't you just have the damage upped for the pistols? Like a Desert Eagle at close range should floor a baddy.

I really don't see why a Desert Eagle would do more damage than, say, a hunting rifle.

Fair point. Though where do you draw the line? Am I going to be reading posts advocating the addition of doberman pinscher launchers that have killer bees in their mouths?

Now that would be totally rad! Seriously though, there is quite some difference between suggesting something totally ridiculous and something that is quite possible.

And thus not really target either one accurately -- dumb.

Well, personally I would also go with succesfully taking down one opponent rather than hurting two.

You have an excellent point.. A damned fine, grade-A genius point... Until someone mentions reloading. That also means interface issues.

Tell you what, I'll agree with you on this issue if you would also advocate a much longer reloading time for the minigun, hunting rifle and all other weapons where there's more to it than just slapping in a fresh clip/magazine.

 

[Killzig]

.50 Caliber v. .223 for the hunting rifle. That's why it should do more damage though its range isn't as great as that of the hunting rifle. That round goes into the target with quite a small entry wound and exits the size of a cantaloupe.

I think, fundamentally, it's a difference in attitudes here Az. I would have liked Fallout to have players use their guns more intelligently (i.e. choose your weapon according to what kind of battle you're in) but then again every battle in fallout ultimately became the same with a higher level enemy as they would just run up close and you'd shoot back and forth (also needs improving) -- while you seem to be of the party that just thinks it would be fun to have two guns. I still haven't seen any reason beyond that, just ways it could be done. I don't think it adds anything more to the game play aside from the cool factor.

 

[Odin]

I don't think it adds anything more to the game play aside from the cool factor.

I'd guess it would do more damage than firing a single shot from a pistol, ie dual welding would fire both pistol at the same time and use 2x pistol shot AP (or just below).

I agree that dual welding is only a cool factor thing..

 

[Azael]

.50 Caliber v. .223 for the hunting rifle. That's why it should do more damage though its range isn't as great as that of the hunting rifle. That round goes into the target with quite a small entry wound and exits the size of a cantaloupe.

Sorry, didn't realize we were talking about the .50 AE caliber, I made the comparison with the .357 Magnum that the Desert Eagle in Fallout is chambered for. Personally, I view the extreme caliber handguns as rather bizzarre, it seems to me that there are other weapons better suited for what they are used for. That's besides the point though. The higher muzzle velocity of a rifle almost always beats the pistol when it comes to stopping power, while the pistol has the advantage of being easier to handle in close quarters. That advantage isn't translated to computer games most of the time though, which is why pistols are mostly a low damage, low range weapon when compared to assault rifles.

I think, fundamentally, it's a difference in attitudes here Az. I would have liked Fallout to have players use their guns more intelligently (i.e. choose your weapon according to what kind of battle you're in) but then again every battle in fallout ultimately became the same with a higher level enemy as they would just run up close and you'd shoot back and forth (also needs improving) -- while you seem to be of the party that just thinks it would be fun to have two guns. I still haven't seen any reason beyond that, just ways it could be done. I don't think it adds anything more to the game play aside from the cool factor.

The choice between two guns vs. a single one should be the choice between a lot of lead in the air as opposed to a few, but deadly, shots.

Personally, I don't really view guns akimbo as something "cool", I don't get a thrill out of seeing someone use two guns simultaneously. I do however believe that it could help some of the early weapons remain useful for a longer time, as well as giving us gun slinger affecionados an altertanive, being able to go both the way of the One Hander, high-critical sharpshooter and the Fast Shot, two gun tooting maniac.

 

[APTYP]

It's .44 Magnum in "Fallout", not .357 or .50AE

I'm sorry, carry on please. Meanwhile I'm waiting for someone to suggest crossbows with grenade-tipped bolts - I wonder what dramatic improvements in gameplay will they struggle to come up with to justify the addition of this uberwaffen.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tell you what, I'll agree with you on this issue if you would also advocate a much longer reloading time for the minigun, hunting rifle and all other weapons where there's more to it than just slapping in a fresh clip/magazine.

Revolvers have speed loaders. Minigun is belt fed. There's nothing saying the hunting rifle isn't clip based.

However, my point want more along the lines of reloading two guns at the same time in the amount of APs it would take. If you allow it in 2 APs, then you have the potential for an exploit. Another problem is that some hand guns take more APs to fire than others, and you also have the problem with two different hand guns having two different ammo volumes. If you have a revolver and a 14MM hand gun, the revolver is going to run out of ammo afer six shots while the 14MM has over twice that IIRC.

I do however believe that it could help some of the early weapons remain useful for a longer time

Then you'd end up running in to the problem of someone having two .223 pistols or two gauss pistols. With two .223 pistols, you'd have a base damage of 40-60 per round, which would be silly. With two gauss pistols, you'd have a base of 44-64 and the 2MM EC ammo pushes that damage to 66-96(!), which is utterly insane for ranged weapons in Fallout. In fact, because of the 2MM EC's 3/2 Damage Mod score, two gauss pistols have a minimum damage score higher than the maximum base damage by the plasma rifle!

Seeing a problem here?

 

[Reaper]

That is just the simple effect of concentrated fire. Using two pistols is a poor man's burst funtion. Two bullets rather than several means that two pistols is worse than an SMG. What is the problem here. Oh it would make two pistol's too good. Use a normal SMG in fallout, the MP10 and you do, on average 90 odd hitpoint with a close range burst. Is that not to powerful?