FO3/NV way too easy?

C

Cruor34

First time out of the vault
I played FO3 on release, and NV on release. I recently replayed NV, but I got bored 1/2 way through and stopped. I find both way too easy, which hurts the replay value for me. I'll focus on NV because I like it more, but they share the same problems.

First problem is stats/skills don't really matter. If you are even semi decent at FPS games, you can beat the game with 50 gun skill.. you do plenty of damage. More helps.. but its not needed. IMO fallout shouldn't be an FPS but we are here and it wont change, so at least make it so you have a a circle that gets tighter depending on your gun skill/range. Medicine doesn't really matter, as long as you have a doctors bag you can repair your crippled limb... it should require a high medical skill. I could go on, but the only skill I can think of that does matter is repair, and its for an idiotic feature. Guns breaking as fast as they do is idiotic.... you guys can leave some features in Oblivion btw, you didn't need to copy and paste fallout over it with all its damn features.

Next, the enemies are way too easy. The AI is very poor, they don't use cover or any team work, they just run run strait into your shotgun. If they are being sniped, they either don't react or run back and forth blindly.. how about take some cover or at least do some evasive action?

Past the AI, they are just too weak. The robots defending Vegas are pathetic, and after their upgrade they are still wimpy. IMO, to START they should be armed with a light support weapon and grenades, upgraded should be plasma casters for short range, and lasers/rockets for long range. As things are they start with 9mm... My level 6 character can crush them in packs, let alone when I'm higher level in power armor. I can write paragraphs on how weak the enemies are.. but again I won't bore you.

The ease of killing huge plot characters is insane... I can walk right up to Caesar or Mr House and just kill them... Caesars guards put up a decent fight but not till after hes dead. He rules by fear... he should be a strong warrior and it should be a vicious fight to kill him. As for Mr. House... uh maybe one of the most rich/powerful men on the planet could have guards that are actually tough and stop you from entering his chamber? Once again.. I can go on...

Anyway, I am wondering if you guys found FO3/NV way too easy as well? I am hoping that Fallout 4 will be harder and not made catering to bobby brain dead and ADD Alex who quit if they cant win first try through and wont buy new additions.

You should have to build a strong character, EVERY skill point should matter, you should have to sit and think for a while where those 5 stat points are going to go. They really need to go back to the FO1/2/Tactics skill system where 100 is "good" but more is better.. up to a cap of (300 I think?) however doing that you miss out on other skills... you know, it makes you actually think and consider different options.. something we have a huge lack of in todays games. As it stands now, I can easily get all the semi useful skills to 100.

Unless you high level with best in slot gear all round you shouldn't be able to just walk into Vegas and kill everything in sight... even then you should have to be damn good to win.... and the last boss should take a few tries before you figure out how to win, not the complete roll over it has been.
 
It doesn't sound like you're playing New Vegas on a Higher difficulty level than "Very Easy" with Hardcore Mode. There are difficulty settings, afterall.

Otherwise, you're applying bad action game logic to a roleplaying game. You're not supposed to go into Vegas and kill everything in sight. You can, but then you lose out on the story and any possibility of a good end.

You can do this with Fallout 3 - you can't fail the main quest because the important NPCs are all marked essential (immortal). You can try to kill them, but it doesn't work.
 
All I read was, "Herp herp, I'm really good at video games". If you're playing on Very Hard with hardcore mode and the game is still too easy then you either need to find PC mods that make the game mind crushingly difficult or find another game entirely.
 
Get Project Nevada or a similar mod (assuming PC of course, on console you outta luck), put on Very Hard and here we go, a reasonably challenging game. Hell, some sections (especially DLCs like Dead Money and Lonesome Road) can become really hard with that setup.

Also, you seem to consider the ''kill everything on sight cause I can lol i'm so hardcore gamer now'' attitude the only viable one. Some people don't have leet skeelz and prefer to play the game as something else than an invincible juggernaut. Roleplaying, remember? And, the first 3 games weren't that hard, really, once you got high skills and armor they were piss easy, and even moreso if you abused the AI.
 
DevilTakeMe said:
It doesn't sound like you're playing New Vegas on a Higher difficulty level than "Very Easy" with Hardcore Mode. There are difficulty settings, afterall.

Otherwise, you're applying bad action game logic to a roleplaying game. You're not supposed to go into Vegas and kill everything in sight. You can, but then you lose out on the story and any possibility of a good end.

You can do this with Fallout 3 - you can't fail the main quest because the important NPCs are all marked essential (immortal). You can try to kill them, but it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you aren't very good and don't want to believe some people find it easy on hard. Of course I played on hard and hardcore mode.

In what way am I applying bad action game logic? I said someone who is good as FPS games but doesn't know how to build a good character should fail, the game should be won or lost on a good character, not FPS skills. Sadly in FO3/NV character build hardly matters.

I did not go around killing everyone for no reason, the fact is you CAN do it and its too easy. My point is that IF you want to kill Mr. House, it should be an insanely difficult task, not the joke it currently is.

Let me give all of you who say the game isnt too easy a task: Get to level 6 and get combat armor. (easy to do, its in that southern canyon or on dead bodies in that wrecked caravan... I found it without a guide because I explore.. the way your suppost to play, right?) Now get a cowboy repeater or whatever weapon you like and try to enter vegas by force... killing the robot guards. You should be able to, if you can't you need to re examine your game play skills.

My point is, you should have a 0.0% chance to win without being high level and in power armor with top end weapons. Same goes for other enemies such as super mutant captains etc.

The game should be challenging out of the box. Yes, I play on PC, yes I think mods are a great thing, but they shouldn't be constantly required to make games good.

None of you said anything about how poor the AI is, would you agree or disagree that it needs to be improved?

Nobody commented on how poor the skills system is vs FO1/2/Tactics, do you like having that boring cap of 100 so you can easily get all the important skills to 100 or would you like to see the old system back?
 
I have to agree with the OP on skills and AI. Doesn't matter what difficulty the game is set at, you can kill easily with only 25-50% in Guns. And when sniping, the enemy just runs back and forth, a few steps on way, a few steps back again. Didn't matter whether it was Fiends or death claws, the reaction to being snipped was the same.
 
I definitely agree with the OP; for more than half of NV, my character feels pretty much invulnerable (for FO3, it was pretty much the entire game). Dead Money did a good job of making you feel much more mortal, but only for a little while.

On the one hand, combat in FO has always been a minor concern for me; it's always been about advancing the story and understanding the world they've created. On the other hand, once the game is built as a FPS-type action RPG, combat necessarily takes on a much more important role in the gameplay and overall user experience. As much as the writing tries to put you in the middle of this huge conflict, the gameplay makes you feel like a demigod walking among petty little human pests.
 
Yeah, New Vegas is pretty easy, FO3 is a lot easier, btu then again FO1 and 2 weren't that ahrd either (I can't talk about tactics, never played it), it has it's hard moments with certain Builds, liek trying to melee Lanius to death (or any boss chracter using melee), that's why I use Repopulated Wasteland along with Project Nevada and the Monster Mod, makes the game a lot harder.
 
Well New Vegas is reasonable difficult for me, because I invest in non combat attributes and skills. Still, the atrocious engine\AI only requires you to exploit some obvious stuff - melee enemies not being able to reach you in some places which aren't so hard to reach etc.
 
It's clear your beef is with Bethesda and it's game design, upon which New Vegas builds upon.

Caesar and House and Kimball are not supposed to be insanely hard - they're old non-combatants themselves. Kimball is a politician, House's robots are tougher than regular humans but aren't invincible.

If you want to challenge yourself. Don't use combat armor. Just use the Vault Suit and the crappy weapon you get at the beginning of the game.

But again, your beef is with Bethesda game design. Oblivion/Morrowind/Fallout 3, etc. were all too easy. New Vegas tried to raise the difficulty (and mostly succeeded), but apparently not enough for action-oriented players like yourself.

If you have any desire for Fallout 4 to be more difficult, just remember who is actually developing it, and their track record for "difficulty."

Bethesda's idea of end bosses are as follows: a regular human guy with a pistol and a leather jacket (Fallout 3), a stationary object while Dagoth Ur yelled at you (Morrowind), lighting a glorified lamp (Oblivion).

At level 6, armed with a cowboy repeater, are you capable of ending this game with Lanius? It's possible, but certainly a lot harder than the above.

Kind of sounds like you want a level-based system, rather than skill-based. And the problem with that is that doesn't really make a great deal of sense on its own.

Take Diablo or World of Warcraft, for instance, has a level based system where the difficulty of an encounter is geometrically related to your enemy level vs. player level. If you're not a certain level, regardless of gear or player ability, the damage you take is multiplied through vastly increased chance of being critically hit, and the damage you deal is marginalized.

At a higher level, that switches around.

With a skill-based system, as we have in Fallout, level is less important than the skill.

The new system is fine. If you can blow through the game with a 50 skill in guns, feel free. Maybe if you want to be entirely dependent on the skill system, use VATS the entire time?

The old system wasn't much better, either. There really wasn't a point to having skills over 100 except for something to spend more skill points, and that's generally because of a failing with percentile-based RPG systems. The new system simplifies the unnecessary math involved.

Though, I would like to be able to -not- spend skill points till I needed or wanted to.

I would like Charisma-based party limits, I don't like having just 1 companion and 1 non-humanoid companion. But as we've seen with mods, the engine sometimes can't handle it very well.
 
Well, now there are some things we can agree upon. Yes, my beef is with Bethesda's game design. Fallout should not be a first person shooter, if it has to "get with the times" it should be like Dragon Age.

A large party doesn't really work with the current engine, and its a shame. You should have the option of a low Cha tough guy or a high Cha/Int diplomat who can solve problems but has a large party, or just a super tough npc who requires 7+ cha to get, or maybe a robot that requires 8 int/100 repair to activate to fight for you. As it stands, you don't have to "try" when making your character... a cat can walk on the keyboard to assign points and if you are a semi decent shot, you will win. So, we 100% agree on the new party system sucking vs the old one.

I still disagree totally on the skill. 100 gun skill was not very good in FO1/2/tactics... it was ok, but not great. at 200 skill you could get eye shots at long range, worth it vs enclave troops but required sacrifice elsewhere unless you got to a really high level. I agree on being force4d to spend skill points on level up... I hate it, and its a step back.

Kimble/Mummy Mr. House don't have to be a tough fighter themselves but if you want to kill them you should need to put a lot of effort in... either like 100 speech/sneak/lockpick or top end combat skills gear, depending on the mathod you choose, its just too easy as is.

Im a bit out of the loop I guess, who is working on Fallout 4? I hope its the people who did NV rather then the FO3 team.
 
Cruor34 said:
Im a bit out of the loop I guess, who is working on Fallout 4? I hope its the people who did NV rather then the FO3 team.
Click to expand...

As far as anyone knows, it's going to be Bethesda (who did Fallout 3/Oblivion/Morrowind/etc.). Obsidian made New Vegas (they were members of Black Isle).

There will be a new engine, called "Creation", which Bethesda is rolling Skyrim out on. That will be what Fallout 4 will be using.
 
Yeah I assumed it would be the Skyrim engine, but I pray Obsidian gets to make Fallout 4, or at least has input. both had glaring flaws but Obsidian did a better job imo. I'll try out some of those mods... do either of them improve the light machine gun and minigun? The idea of tons of low damage bullets just doesn't work properly.. Minigun should limit you to carrying just it and ammo for being so heavy but you should be able to tear an entire pack of deathclaws up with it, needs to be brought back to its fallout2 /Fallout Tactics glory.... and we need a gunpowder based firearm that's better then a Brush gun designed in what... 1890? Bugs the hell out of me.
 
The Suave Gambler said:
I recommend FOOK. Because all the enemies are relatively low level throughout the game, fook balances that. Not to mention you get a ton of high quality weapon retextures, loads more variety in weapons, and a bundle of FO1/2 weapons that have been missing for no apparent reason.

http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=34684
Click to expand...

Are there any balance mods that don't add new weapons or modify existing ones?
 
Ophiuchus said:
The Suave Gambler said:
I recommend FOOK. Because all the enemies are relatively low level throughout the game, fook balances that. Not to mention you get a ton of high quality weapon retextures, loads more variety in weapons, and a bundle of FO1/2 weapons that have been missing for no apparent reason.

http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=34684
Click to expand...

Are there any balance mods that don't add new weapons or modify existing ones?
Click to expand...

None that I know of, but so far the additions and changes of weapons have been pleasant if you notice them. Most of the weapons that are added are purely sidegrades. In example, the Wattz 1000 is an in-between for the Laser Pistol and the Recharger pistol.

None of the weapons added are particularly OP. They can work very differently than any other weapon when heavily modded though, but thats not to say that they're OP.

It doesn't feel over-saturated either, because the added weapons can be used to repair weapons that use the same caliber, which they would have anyway if say that Wattz 1000 was a laser pistol in vanilla.

Also, I haven't noticed any weapon being particularly UP either.
 
when it comes to the AI and difficulty of the game (being to easy) you can direct pretty much all of your complains toward Bethesda.

They actually ditched the former Fallout system for a combination of Oblivion with some Fallout skills with the focus on the Oblivion gameplay. hence it is in my eyes just a mediocre shooter. And the same was true for Vegas as well. You can call it an RPG as much as you want. But in my eyes it is a shooter first and an RPG later. Not just because in both games (vegas and F3) there is a hallah lot of combat but because it is made so mediocre.

You need actually only 2 things. Stimpacks. And weapons. Previous Fallout games required the same. But they also required a bit of thinking not just pulling the trigger till you are out of ammo or the enemy dead. With F3 and somewhat with Vegas you just shoot take stimpacks and watch the enemy die.

With previous games this was not always the same. Why ? Because skills actually had a meaning. Not just for the "Damage". With Oblivion you always do damage. Regardless how big or low your skill is. So it is just a matter for time till your enemy will hit the dust. Fallout 3 was the same. And with some limitations Vegas is the same here as well. I have to say though that they did a much better job in Vegas with a few (but rare) locations. But they actually are not "tactically" demanding they are just "shooter" difficulty. Many enemies with much health in a single area like the death claw valley where you can get the enclave power armor. I mean that is their definition of difficulty ? Stuffing a very small area full of deathclaws ? Wow. Like no shooter has done that before! In doom it made at least fun if you have blown away waves of enemies.

For me the issue is not that Vegas or F3 had "easy" combat. For me it was an issue that it is neither a good shooter nor a good RPG (with the gameplay).

Already before I reached level 20 in both games I was king of the hill. I had every important skill on the max. Science, speech, Lock-pick etc. You could do that in Fallout 1 and 2 as well. But it was much more difficult to achieve it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top