Further Level Cap Increases Could Unbalance 'Fallout 3'

[Jidai Geki]

And sadly that is the issue with Fallout 3 as it was made for people in mind that liked Fallout for the setting. Not the mechanics behind it or the gameplay in the first place.

I disagree; it wasn't even made with that simple concept in mind. Bethsoft repeatedly stated they would be making 'their' RPG with FO3, and the result, whilst faithful in some areas, deviates in many places in order to sanitise and simplify things (psychotic cannibalistic raiders, uniformly evil supermutants, 'noble' Brotherhood etc. etc.).

That aside, I consider myself one of the Fallout fans that places the setting as a high priority, although after FO3 I have come to appreciate choice/consequence mechanics and well-written dialogue a bit more. The demise of TB combat would not have bothered me so much had the RTwP been implemented in a much better way, viz. not so ridiculously easy. I'm playing through with a character who's heavy on non-combat (tagged science and speech; 30% small guns is her best weapon skill) and she's mowing supermutants down routinely.

I don't consider it a terrible game, however, despite what the above may suggest. It's fairly entertaining, if not something that will still hold my attention in ten years in the same way the originals still do.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It's not a matter of taste. I really think it's bad design. What can you do to avoid a painful death if the god or random numbers goes against you? Don't let the enemy never hit you? I could understand if those criticals dealt...dunno...double the max damage of the weapon or something like that, because there's a chance you can survive that while putting you in danger anyway. But criticals that deals more damage than any kind of HP you could ever get? Come oooon.

The situation though that I got a critical that was so heavily that it killed me with the first time was relatively rare though. Particularly when you have the 1 or other companion around you. At some point you know about it in the game and get used to it keep some distance and let the enemy come to you or use some cover from sometimes.

As said it makes the game for "some" here more fun that it can happen. Its not bad design. You seem to not like this kind of design choice which is again as said OK. But that you think its "bad" design doesnt mean that it is really bad design. Quite a few people hate Jagged Alliance 1 and 2 with a passion. Why? Cause its somewhat the epidome of TB combat. I really ask my self why people ever play such a thing then in the first place ... not every game has to suit everyone and it somewhat is aiming for a particular group of players. I love JA and I always thought "this is the TB system missing in Fallout!". but thats just me.

If you know about some alternative that is at least in the same way as rewarding like Fallout 1/2s system then you could of course try to explain it. But what it might be. Fallout 3s system which borrow a lot of aspects and gameplay from Oblivion is definetly not what I would describe as a rewarding system in which people that only have 30% in small arms or even less in hand-to-hand combat can beat the game rather easily. That has nothing anymore to do with role playing. Its a mentality to "never ever frustrate the player". particularly not those with younger age ...

 

[Black]

And...? Save/Load shouldn't be a gameplay feature. At least not of this kind.

It lets you continue after unfortunate accidents. That's all.

Wait, I'm not saying that the player should never die but a game should never kill the player without giving him a chance, even a small one, to survive. With those criticals there's no chance to survive and the player can't do anything to prevent death.

Yeah, me neither. But that doesn't apply to RANDOM crits because they're RANDOM. If you got one-shot'd in a combat because of a (un)lucky crit, reload and it probably won't happen again.


tl;dr I liked King's Quest.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

As said it makes the game for "some" here more fun that it can happen. Its not bad design. You seem to not like this kind of design choice which is again as said OK. But that you think its "bad" design doesnt mean that it is really bad design. Quite a few people hate Jagged Alliance 1 and 2 with a passion. Why? Cause its somewhat the epidome of TB combat. I really ask my self why people ever play such a thing then in the first place ... not every game has to suit everyone and it somewhat is aiming for a particular group of players. I love JA and I always thought "this is the TB system missing in Fallout!". but thats just me.

The comparison with TB system doesn't work very well, because the "fatality criticals" are a feature while TB is a complete system.

If you know about some alternative that is at least in the same way as rewarding like Fallout 1/2s system then you could of course try to explain it. But what it might be. Fallout 3s system which borrow a lot of aspects and gameplay from Oblivion is definetly not what I would describe as a rewarding system in which people that only have 30% in small arms or even less in hand-to-hand combat can beat the game rather easily. That has nothing anymore to do with role playing. Its a mentality to "never ever frustrate the player". particularly not those with younger age ...

Wait, what? I'm happy with TB, I like it. X-com and JA1 are two of my favourite games of all times. What I don't like is random criticals that can kill ANY character.

Yeah, me neither. But that doesn't apply to RANDOM crits because they're RANDOM. If you got one-shot'd in a combat because of a (un)lucky crit, reload and it probably won't happen again.

Being random isn't really an excuse. Having to save all the time because I could die from a random critical sounds like an exploit to me. But it seems that I'm the only one bothered by this design choice so let's just agree to disagree.

tl;dr I liked King's Quest.

Before I was thinking to make exactly a comparison with those old Sierra adventure games.
After all there's a reason if those sadistic unwinnable situations and deathtraps are gone from the genre.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Wait, I'm not saying that the player should never die but a game should never kill the player without giving him a chance, even a small one, to survive. With those criticals there's no chance to survive and the player can't do anything to prevent death.

"To not die, press <A>?" Cmon.

Yeah, me neither. But that doesn't apply to RANDOM crits because they're RANDOM. If you got one-shot'd in a combat because of a (un)lucky crit, reload and it probably won't happen again.

Aren't ALL crits random, or did I miss sth?

And...? Save/Load shouldn't be a gameplay feature. At least not of this kind.

Would it be better if FO1/2 was purely "Ironman"-style (restart the game from the very beginning if you die), or had savepoints? Although, tbh, saving DURING battle was a pretty silly feature.

Anyway though, strong crits late-game in FO1/2 balanced the game so as not to turn the PC into an unkillable GOD-machine like in FO3. If anything, some of the stronger enemies are best killed the same way, and there's no reason why the PC shouldn't be in equal conditions with the NPCs.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

1) Search the internet and download the "wiz8fast.zip".

I wish I had known about that many years ago, it would have saved a lot of pain.

 

[Quaid]

...The demise of TB combat would not have bothered me so much had the RTwP been implemented in a much better way, viz. not so ridiculously easy. I'm playing through with a character who's heavy on non-combat (tagged science and speech; 30% small guns is her best weapon skill) and she's mowing supermutants down routinely...

Have you tried playing combat with VATS exclusively? I play on the hardest setting and I don't attack unless I use VATS. I think you'll find 'mowing supermutants down routinely' may be a bit harder with a 30% weapon skill, as you'll miss more often and do less damage when you hit, while your enemy will have more health than on an easier difficulty. Does this excuse the combat system? No. But it make it a bit more palatable, at least for me.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...The demise of TB combat would not have bothered me so much had the RTwP been implemented in a much better way, viz. not so ridiculously easy. I'm playing through with a character who's heavy on non-combat (tagged science and speech; 30% small guns is her best weapon skill) and she's mowing supermutants down routinely...

Have you tried playing combat with VATS exclusively? I play on the hardest setting and I don't attack unless I use VATS. I think you'll find 'mowing supermutants down routinely' may be a bit harder with a 30% weapon skill, as you'll miss more often and do less damage when you hit, while your enemy will have more health than on an easier difficulty. Does this excuse the combat system? No. But it make it a bit more palatable, at least for me.

That might be, but we all have seen the "ST1,EN1 hardest difficulty, 8% melee" video. So I don't think it is more patatable. You should have to play pretend on the hardest settings to get a hard game.

 

[Quaid]

That might be, but we all have seen the "ST1,EN1 hardest difficulty, 8% melee" video. So I don't think it is more patatable. You should have to play pretend on the hardest settings to get a hard game.

Okay. First, I believe it has already been firmly established that your 'madz twitchz skillz' will 'pwn' in real time. No matter what the stats say, your twitch ability can get the job done on its own. This puts the combat firmly in the realm of 'action' rather than 'rpg'. So I am saying to play the game OPPOSITE of this to TRY to make it as RPG as possible. Is it as good as Fallout 1 combat? Hell no. But if somebody is going to play the game (like the author of the first post I quoted) this is the best solution I have found.

Second, your comment ignores a crucial factor of my statement: Using ONLY VATS for combat. This is as close as we can get to the original FO1 turnbased (though it is obviously a far cry from it for many reasons). I had a number of tense battles and situations by refusing to attack via real-time. It is not 'pretending' it is ignoring one option for the game. Just like I only played Arcanum in the turn-based mode as opposed to real time. When you have low weapon skills and you are sneaking on the outskirts of a Mirelurk's nest, or around a Yai Guai it is tense as hell. Especially since if you are detected and run to avoid the creature you will likely trigger radscorpions and the like to your presence.

All I am saying is, for those on these boards that choose to play this game, if you'd like more of a challenge in combat then set the game to max difficulty and refuse to attack unless it is through VATS. I am willing to bet at least the first 10 levels will present some level of challenge to the combat.

 

[Brother None]

Okay. First, I believe it has already been firmly established that your 'madz twitchz skillz' will 'pwn' in real time. No matter what the stats say, your twitch ability can get the job done on its own.

That's not true. Twitch has a massive impact if you want to use it, and good FPSers might do without VATS wholesale, but if you lack skills completely the bullets will veer too widely, and perhaps more importantly; if the state of your equipment is too low you'll barely do any damage. Equipment > stats in this case, I think, but it's still influence beyond just twitch.

I agree to some extent. I managed to kill two supermutants at level 3 by twitching around, and that's just weak, but twitch won't get you everywhere.

Second, your comment ignores a crucial factor of my statement: Using ONLY VATS for combat.

I pretty much only used VATS for combat since I played the game in TPP and the shooty action is kinda meh like that. VATS is kind of a cheat button, so it still wasn't that challenging.

 

[eternaut]

Then I recommend you never play Wizardry 8. Critical hits are always deadly there.

Funny you mentioned Wiz 8, i just got it, and was gonna give it a spin. Any pointers?

....

1) Search the internet and download the "wiz8fast.zip".

2) NEVER EVER USE THE SPELL "SLOW"!!!!!!!!!

3) Don´t enter the first town for the first time without using your level ups. There is a bug that bogs up the level of enemies then.

4) Fights can contain theoretically an unlimited amount of enemies! So watch out for your stamina (everything needs stamina: attacking AND evading/getting hit), you don´t want to become unconscious in a fight. There are several places where enemies path cross. DON'T GET SURROUNDED!!!

5) Skills increase with usage and by distributing points when you level up. So using low damage weapons or standing around can be used to power level some skills.

6) Most enemies scale with your level. That can, if you are not careful, cause a problem with your skill levels, which largely determines your abilities in combat.

7) Conditions and mass spells can really hurt your party. Keep up the protections.

8) Excluding some weird party combinations, members of your party will die!

9) Bards and Gagdeteers rock.

10) Elementals rock, too!

From the top of my head. Anything else or something specific?

Wow, THANK YOU!!
I still couldn't get to play it, but maybe soon i'll bother you via pm

 

[smejki]

Yeah baby! [sarcasm]Fallout 3 is one of the most perfectly balanced games[/sarcasm]