@GAMER New Vegas article scans

[alec]

I'm saying the fact it is an FPS isn't a big enough reason to dismiss the game.

Yes it is. Because it claims to be an RPG in the Fallout setting. Which needs TB combat to make any sense.

 

[cogar66]

I'm saying the fact it is an FPS isn't a big enough reason to dismiss the game.

Yes it is. Because it claims to be an RPG.

Of course, because RPGs are all about combat.

Purists.

Edit: Eh, how does it need TB combat to make any sense? I understand it needing TB combat to be a "true" Fallout game. I agree with you about Fallout supposed to have TB combat in order for it be a "true" Fallout game, but you claim it's not an RPG merely because it uses a different combat mechanic. This is complete bullshit. Fallout's(mechanics) have been dead since Interplay collapsed, but that doesn't change the fact that NV might be a good RPG based in the Fallout universe. I can see where you're coming from though.

 

[Crni Vuk]

could someone blame him for it ? Considering that the old games have been designed as tourn based experience ?

If bethesda would have come up with a whole new setting and own game no one would have the right to complain that its "real time" if that is what they choose. Its their product afterall.

But they decided to develop a Fallout game. On purpose. They knew what they did from the first day (or maybe they havnt no clue ...). Fact is if you continue a well known series runing around in the media day and night claiming to make a "true sequel to the old games" then I dont see why exactly this game (fallout 3) and its devs (Bethesda) should enjoy the luxury to not compare their game to the past games. And criticise that Fallout today is a first person shooter with (more or less) some RPG elements just cause its all changed for the inovations sake ?

Inovation is for me when you take a mountainbike and make it a "better" mountainbike but not by tourning it into a motorcrossbike. Both are made with a similar approach, offroad experience and fun, yet both achieve that in different ways which are equal to each other when it comes to the experience and fun as no one can claim the one is better then the other. Now Fallout 3 has just done a shift not any improvement at all. Even worse see what this "improvements" have done in the end. Shallow story, boring combat and stupid dialogue. Almost like a purse sub standart shooter ...

A'lec might be a bit harsh but I think hes somewhat right. Fallout never was meant to be a shooter in the first place. So the criticism not that wrong.

 

[DocConrad]

Flash Gordon space suits and rocket ships with Ghoul builders and pilots. I don't see how it fits into Fallout's theme and I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea given the setting so I'm wondering how they plan on making that one work.

I'll reference the talking head:

Our true home awaits us in the Far Beyond.

Notice that "Far Beyond" is a capitalized. This reminds me of those Heaven's Gate folks that thought if they killed themselves they'd hitch a ride on the Hale-Bopp Comet and achieve the next level of existence. Post-nuclear doomsday cults? Not too far off the mark, really.

 

[NiRv4n4]

I'm saying the fact it is an FPS isn't a big enough reason to dismiss the game.

Yes it is. Because it claims to be an RPG in the Fallout setting. Which needs TB combat to make any sense.

The Fallout setting could really be any type of genre. I actually think first person is the best way to show it, being more atmospheric and immersing. Sure, TB is important to the original Fallout series, but setting really has nothing to do with it.

EDIT:

Gotta call you out on this as well. There's nothing that prohibits an RPG from also having real-time combat, or FPS-based combat. You mention the Fallout setting, and there's nothing wrong with having a non-turn-based game in that setting. Would I call it a "true" sequel? Not really, but that doesn't mean that it can't be an RPG and it can't be good.

Whoa...

 

[Continuum]

The Fallout setting could really be any type of genre.

You're right, it can be football manager, racing game (Rocket Ghouls are already there), or post nuclear snooker game. So why even bother with console shooter then? Why not make something more fresh, since console shooters are extremely overused these days. And I think snooker game could be the best for Fallout setting.

I actually think first person is the best way to show it, being more atmospheric and immersing.

Yeah, too bad original creators thought differently than you and Bethesda/Obsidian. Looks like they were totally wrong. But hey! New owners are fixing this small design mistake now.

 

[Surf Solar]

I never understood why a First Person Perspective should be more immersive then any other.

 

[Gaspard]

The first Deus Ex did a pretty decent job at a first-person-view RPG. So it's not impossible to do a decent game in that vein.
But I don't see how Fallout is less immersive. I didn't feel like immersing in any of the 3D glossing, which was empty underneath - no f. content!


Ugh, those rockets are spaceships ? WTF, why ?!

 

[your evil twin]

When I first played Fallout 1 and 2, it was several years after they had come out, and the other PC games I had been playing recently were Half-Life and Deus Ex.

I enjoyed Fallout 1 and 2 immensley, but also had the thought that I'd enjoy being able to play that storyline and setting in a first person perspective, and in real time rather than turn based.

For me what made Fallout awesome was the story, the setting, and the freedom of choice. The fact that it was turn based and in an isometric perspective was not a turn-off, but it wasn't a turn-on either.

And given my competence at FPS games, playing in real time in first person is effectively the same as clicking on an enemy in turn based combat. I don't have any trouble aiming at an enemy in an FPS game so my player skill is irrelevant, what matters is my character's weapon skill, and how much spread it causes my gun's bullets to have and how much damage the bullets do.

(And whether or not I choose to get into combat in the first place - I could use a diplomatic solution, or sneak past the enemies.)

Just like in Deus Ex. If you try to use rifles or heavy weapons without having invested skill points in them, your crosshair is huge and your weapon spread so high that the weapon is useless beyond point blank range. If you invest your points into rifles then assault rifles and sniper rifles become viable options, if you invest into heavy weapons then rocket launchers and plasma guns are lots of fun indeed.

That's RPG combat as far as I'm concerned. Having the enemy stand still and wait while I click on him just seems like a mechanic pen-and-paper tabletop RPG like Dungeons and Dragons that is inexplicable in a computer game, and in a computer game you don't have to wait while dice are physically rolled and the DM looks up stuff on a chart.

 

[x'il]

And given my competence at FPS games, playing in real time in first person is effectively the same as clicking on an enemy in turn based combat.

Is it? does the enemy moves, shoots at you, etc, during the time it takes for you to click on it on turn-based combat? are quick reflexes/good aim involved there?

I don't have any trouble aiming at an enemy in an FPS game so my player skill is irrelevant, what matters is my character's weapon skill, and how much spread it causes my gun's bullets to have and how much damage the bullets do..

So your aiming is pretty good which makes it irrelevant? does it work too if you don't aim at the enemy?

And what about the people who do (have trouble aiming at an enemy in an FPS game)? do they hit the enemy too with the full damage warranted by their character's skill level if they shoot 2-game meters away from the enemy?

No, those are two very different things and make for very different "gameplay" (regardless of your personal skill).

Having the enemy stand still and wait while I click on him just seems like a mechanic pen-and-paper tabletop RPG like Dungeons and Dragons that is inexplicable in a computer game(...)

Inexplicable? not at all, just look at Dark Sun, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout 1 & 2, Arcanum, some tactical strategy games, etc, etc, for it.

 

[Kyuu]

For me what made Fallout awesome was the story, the setting, and the freedom of choice.

Those may have been awesome things in Fallout, but those were not the core features (with the possible exception of freedom of choice, but then Fallout 3 definitely did not improve or even maintain that area at all), were not the reason the game was made, and they don't mean that TB and iso were not deliberate decisions made by the developers. They (TB and iso) were not done because of technological limitations (I shouldn't need to go over the history of the first-person perspective or real-time combat in games, look it up yourself if you're interested).

The fact that it was turn based and in an isometric perspective was not a turn-off, but it wasn't a turn-on either.

That gameplay did, in fact, turn a lot of people on. Both were also essential to the core gameplay that the developers wanted. Many people, such as myself, like it and agree with the developers that it accomplished the goal of emulating pen-and-paper in a cRPG better than other systems.

Just because some people who played it (mostly people who didn't) don't care about it and prefer their more "immersive" (yay for vague, ill-defined catch words that mean different things to different people and, therefore, make for poor goals to strive for) FPP and real-time is not a good argument why a sequel to Fallout shouldn't preserve things that were core game features.

As already pointed out, but pointedly ignored, no one is saying RPGs can't have a variety of combat mechanics. But there's no reason Fallout, of all franchises, should have some incredibly poor FPP combat spliced in. Even ignoring that it's contrary to core Fallout features, there are other avenues for those who like such things to get an RPG-lite with FPP combat. Bethesda made one just previous to Fallout 3 on the same engine for chrissakes. Fallout just didn't need it, and the general gamer audience didn't either. There's a definite dearth of good iso TB RPGs around for those of us (and it's not a small audience) who enjoy such things, and a proper revival of the Fallout franchise would have been nice.

No one is saying Fallout was perfect. The combat could use a lot of tweaking, additional features (cover, improved AI, etc.), and everyone would have loved to see the Fallout world rendered in a modern engine whether it was high-quality "2D" or "3D". But that's what "we" (if we must speak in absurd generalities) wanted: a Fallout that was improved and modernized but still the same sort of game. Not an unreasonable expectation for a sequel.

Bethesda could have made their own post-apoc reskin of Oblivion without using the Fallout franchise and their fans could still have gobbled that up and "we" would be free to ignore it, deride it, or even just enjoy it for what it is without it having to also very unfortunately misuse and misapply even the setting, lore, and the gameplay mechanics it ripped out of Fallout.

This is an old Fallout fansite. You can't expect the regulars of such a site, as a whole, to be welcoming of what Bethesda did with the Fallout license. To have such an expectation is unreasonable of you.

Now, that being said, Obsidian obviously has no way to change the basic gameplay mechanics of Fallout 3, which are merely slightly-mutated Oblivion mechanics, of course. I think it's a good thing they're adding iron-sights to the FPP combat and otherwise doing what they can to improve it. Like a previous poster, I also don't expect it will be more than mediocre, but there's little you can do when you're starting with garbage in the first place. Mediocre will be a huge improvement from Fallout 3's just-plain-awful.

And VATS... there's absolutely nothing you can do with such a hideously broken system. All they could have done was toss it, but that obviously wasn't going to happen.

 

[LionXavier]

I never understood why a First Person Perspective should be more immersive then any other.

Well... it's being continuously said by Beth's PR people, so it must be right, mustn't it?

For me what made Fallout awesome was the story, the setting, and the freedom of choice.

That would certainly be very interesting... if personal opinions were objective arguments to define a game. But it's not the case.

And given my competence at FPS games, playing in real time in first person is effectively the same as clicking on an enemy in turn based combat.

So... if a boxer is competent at tic-tac-toe, does that mean that a tic-tac-toe game would be the same as a title match for him?

I don't have any trouble aiming at an enemy in an FPS game so my player skill is irrelevant,

Of course it is relevant: it's precisely your skill at FPS what makes you to have no trouble aiming at an enemy.

That's RPG combat as far as I'm concerned.

Well, that happens very frequently nowadays: people call whatever thing the want an RPG. Did you know that they've even given that name to a shooter with minigames?

Having the enemy stand still and wait while I click on him just seems like a mechanic pen-and-paper tabletop RPG like Dungeons and Dragons that is inexplicable in a computer game,

So... is it inexplicable that computer chess has the same mechanics than real-life chess?

Well, maybe if you had known that Fallout what consciously designed as a tabletop pnp-inspired RPG game, you wouldn't have said that.

and in a computer game you don't have to wait while dice are physically rolled and the DM looks up stuff on a chart.

And that's precisely the best part: being in a computer, the die-rolling and stat-checking is done automatically by the machine in less than a second. So, for all the things that you lose for it being in a computer, you surely win in this regard!

 

[terebikun]

if personal opinions were objective arguments to define a game. But it's not the case.

What the hell is "fun" then?

 

[Arden]

What the hell is "fun" then?

Fun is a subjective way to describe that a game was pleasing to the player without actually judging the game objectively. A crap game can be "fun". Being "fun" does not mean the game ist technically good. Thats what a lot of gamingjournos dont "get". If they have fun thats ok and should be metioned under impressions. But it does not make the graphics better, the bugs lesser or the mechanics well thougth out.

 

[LionXavier]

if personal opinions were objective arguments to define a game. But it's not the case.

What the hell is "fun" then?

Fun can be a lot of things, but what it certainly isn't is an objective and universal factor to declare what is and what isn't worthy about a game. Anyway, I think that Arden has already explained it very well.