FO3 must not fall into the same traps as FO, FO2 and FOT

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Trap 1)The trap of making a skill and then never using it. For example, gamble in FO and FO2 was bloody useless, and in FO2 it was only good for suckering the occasional quartermaster.

Or the way that in all 3 games there were always some skills that really weren't useful. For example, in FO and FO2, did anyone actually use grenades much? Or melee weapons?
Did anyone use melee or unarmed in FO2 if you weren't a Deathclaw?

Trap 2) Making some skills totally indispensable.
In FO and FO2, speech was god.
In FOT, outdoorsman was incredibly important. Why? BECAUSE THERE WERE WAY TOO MANY RANDOM HOSTILE ENCOUNTERS. Seriously. You cannot travel a few squares in FOT without encountering, whether through fighting or through having the outdoorsman to click no at least 2-3 times.
 
>Trap 1)The trap of making a
>skill and then never using
>it. For example, gamble in
>FO and FO2 was bloody
>useless,

I'd suggest next time you go into what's called a "Casino" or "Bar" and try again.

>Or the way that in all
>3 games there were always
>some skills that really weren't
>useful. For example, in FO
>and FO2, did anyone actually
>use grenades much?

Yes, I have made a grenade-thrower. Helps against robots and others and putting the grenade into the right spot.

>Or melee
>weapons?

Yes, it is very possible to do so.

>Did anyone use melee or unarmed
>in FO2 if you weren't
>a Deathclaw?

Yes.

>Trap 2) Making some skills totally
>indispensable.
>In FO and FO2, speech was
>god.

Yet you could easily do without it, depending upon what kind of character you wanted to play.
 
Gameplay patches. Ugh. How about FO3 keeping the setting and core features and throwing the rest of old stuff out of the window? I mean, come on - you got developers doing game programming since the 80's, it's not like they don't have experience to do it.



- disabled -​
 
Gambling in FO and FO2 was utterly useless. You could make money much more easily by stealing.

And while "thief" is a character archetype, I don't see anyone taking "gambler".
 
>Gambling in FO and FO2 was
>utterly useless. You could make
>money much more easily by
>stealing.

The above statement is utterly clueless. In fact, there's an exploit where you can do with Gambling because after a certain point you'll be able to make thousands in the matter of minutes without any effort of saving/loading.

>And while "thief" is a character
>archetype, I don't see anyone
>taking "gambler".

Gambling is sometimes taken as part of Thief, with Small Guns or Energy, and some skill put into Doctor for the implants.
 
Stupid rants

Whenever I'd give my character 100% in the gambling skill I would win money every time I played a slot machine or spun the roulette wheel.

I think its worth it. Oh most certainly. You know, I was playing Fallout 1 the other day and it seemed to me that shot gun shells were kinda rare. I don't know why they seemed rare, but I found that I could destroy anything in the game with the combat shotgun. It was my typical Deathclaw slayer as I remembered me gunning them down in the ol' Boneyard area where you're trying to get to the Gun Runners.

I wonder what ever happened to those guys. I always thought they'd make a great group of survalists. Well anyways, I don't want the Roshambo Warrior to chew me out with his uber greatness like he does everyone else. It makes me cry and I don't know jack about anything relevent.

If I could add one thing about gambling that they could tweak in Fallout 3 it would have to be in battle.

I don't know if the Luck system was involved during die rolls in Fallout, but I think its important that if your character was a good "gambler" he'd be able to gamble his life a bit and take risks. Higher critical chance maybe or perhaps a fatal wound would magically not be so fatal.

Maybe Fallout had already implemented this, I don't know, but I sure as heck never was saved by "lucking out".

"I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.
 
RE: Stupid rants

Kinda like a Maverick character then, huh?

I think (if this is not implemented already in the previous Fallouts) gambling should be involved in quests.

Like, you talk to Metzger with the slavers and maybe one of the options could be:

"Let's play a game of poker. IF I win, I get Vic, no questions asked. If you win, I'll pay double his worth."

Followed by a cheesy *gasp* by all the slavers or something like that.
 
RE: Stupid rants

^Nice

But what I'd like to see in the gambling system is the choice to gamble with shopkeepers for items. It gets terribly redundant, especially with a low gambling skill character, to gamble at casinos for the highest amount of money possible when the item you want is worth several times that amount. Arcanum's gambling system implemented this option but then the shopkeeper's reaction would drop considerable and they would be outright hostile if you win multiple items from them, causing to them raise prices. And then, in Arcanum, when you go around and gamble with a random bloke, you can only gamble for up to 100 gold. (But besides that, buy Arcanum! Support Tim Cain and Crew!)

Anyhow, as for the gambling character in combat, I do believe that he gets a slight advantage since if his gambling skill is high, then his Luck stat would be high and give him a better critical hit chance. If you get the increased critical attacks perks, your character might be able to do criticals half the time in FO1. In FO2, there's a perk that makes all your attacks criticals, and I think there's a high luck requirement. But that's only if you build a pure gambler character, with high luck, not a melee fighter who just happens to have alot of gambling skill.

"Credo Ut Intelligam"- I believe so that I may understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top