GamesRadar - The Infinite Potential of Fallout 3

[mandrake776]

Do you really expect the one in FO3 to be more competent?

Yes, I expect the followers to shoot me less often.

Nor is anyone saying they want killable children because they get off on killing kids - in fact, a number of people have explained to you the real reason - yet you're still going around calling everyone crazy and creepy bastards.

I never called anyone that, first. Second I've said repeatedly that there are good reasons for it and that focusing on this is creepy.

 

[ookami]

Is sex really more appalling than murder?

That's a dishonest representation of the actual issue at hand. More accurately, the question should be: Is the sexual molestation of children more appalling than the concept of mortality?

 

[whirlingdervish]

Do you really expect the one in FO3 to be more competent?

Yes, I expect the followers to shoot me less often.

Why would you expect that from a Bethesda game?

Because there's only one as opposed to 5?

They can barely pull off collision detection, much less line of fire restrictions in their AI to keep them from murdering each other.

example: oblivion's archer gaurds.

In FO2 depending on the combat abilities of specific party member NPCs you could actually tell them when it was OK to spray an automatic weapon in your direction because there are tactical situations where this can be beneficial.

Have you even seen any sign of party member settings that the player can adjust to change the way their ally reacts in terms of aggression and combat behaviors like retreating and healing?

here I'll make the point all caps so you can't manage to gloss it over in your reply:

PRECISELY HOW HAS BETHESDA IMPROVED THE NPCS AI OVER PREVIOUS FALLOUT TITLES SO THAT YOU CAN TRUST THEM NOT TO ACCIDENTALLY SHOOT YOU AS FREQUENTLY IN FALLOUT 3?

have at it.

 

[mandrake776]

Um. Wow. I expect that they will because they're familiar with Fallout and how having companions often got you killed. They know it was a problem and that makes me think that they may have put some effort toward fixing it. It's complete speculation.

 

[whirlingdervish]

Um. Wow. I expect that they will because they're familiar with Fallout and how having companions often got you killed. They know it was a problem and that makes me think that they may have put some effort toward fixing it. It's complete speculation.

They know what now?
Please, enlighten us on what Bethesda collectively knows about Fallout..

How many of them have played Fallout?

We know the answer, and it isn't many.

Where does their deep understanding of Fallout come from, then? The fact that they've said they loved it a bunch of times and you parroted them?

They can't even remember the difference between the pipboy and the vault boy icon.

They couldn't figure out why traits had negative side effects, or that Bloody Mess wasn't a fucking perk.

More than half of them weren't even old enough to have played Fallout when it came out, and you're spouting a line about how well they know Fallout and how they understand it.

R O F L.

to summarize, you admit that you just expect it, based on NO FACTS AT ALL, and you just tried to talk down the most informed poster (about fallout 3) on these boards with nothing more than your uninformed expectations.

:deadhorse:

 

[Texas Renegade]

Plus, the advantage of an FPS world does remove a lot of the errors of getting burst shot by your own team because you were standing in front of their targer.

Plus, not all NPCs were that changeable in FO2.

I belive marcus was considered the best skill wise with big guns. You could tell him to "burst only when not likely to hit me" or something. The "when you are sure you won't hit me" wasn't available for him.

Also, that had no affect on him bursting your party members. 1st or 2nd time I played, he killed Sulik, Cassidy, and goris in like one encounter with the Enclave from bursting them ......

 

[Mephestys]

Let us not forget that we're talking about Radiant A.I. here..

We've got NPC's and monsters that are generally less impressive than what you would find in classic DOOM.

I have no idea where any of you might be getting the idea that the game being viewed from a first-person perspective will somehow solve the problem of enemies shooting one another in the back..

All that you're going to get now is the benefit of your allies doing the same to you.

 

[whirlingdervish]

I belive marcus was considered the best skill wise with big guns. You could tell him to "burst only when not likely to hit me" or something. The "when you are sure you won't hit me" wasn't available for him.

Also, that had no affect on him bursting your party members. 1st or 2nd time I played, he killed Sulik, Cassidy, and goris in like one encounter with the Enclave from bursting them ......

giving marcus a minigun wasn't a very smart idea then, was it?

a plasma or pulse rifle is the best bet for him and setting him to his most agressive setting is a must unless you want him to be behind you in combat because he doesn't move all that far in a turn. just make sure he gets healed regularly or his lack of armor will take him down.

What I found to be remarkable about the system in Fallout 2 was that your NPCs were changeable based on their personality and physical traits.

Cassidy was easily the best because you could use any setting and give him most of the weapons in the game.

Myron was worthless, even levelled up with PA and a pulse pistol.

These differences added some spice to the process of choosing a party from the available NPCs, along with the ability of some to wear Armor or use certain types of weapon.

I haven't seen any sign of this variation in Fallout 3 beyond some NPCs being able to use certain types of weapons, and as such it would seem to be a step backward, just like cutting back the limit to 1 party member.

A charismatic style player should be able to recruit more than one person to their cause, and in terms of gameplay they often need to if they didn't spend enough points on weapon skills to survive the wastes effectively, or work on science/repair skills that an NPC could augment with their own abilities.

 

[Ausir]

Yes, I expect the followers to shoot me less often.

I expect that the only reason they won't is that friendly fire will be disabled completely.

 

[mandrake776]

They know what now?
Please, enlighten us on what Bethesda collectively knows about Fallout..

That friendly fire was an issue.

How many of them have played Fallout?

We know the answer, and it isn't many.

It's more than one, then? Then they know it's an issue.

Where does their deep understanding of Fallout come from, then? The fact that they've said they loved it a bunch of times and you parroted them?

Show me where I said anything like that. Ever.

They can't even remember the difference between the pipboy and the vault boy icon.

Yeah, that's real core gameplay shit right there.

They couldn't figure out why traits had negative side effects, or that Bloody Mess wasn't a fucking perk.

You didn't read what they said on that subject, clearly.

More than half of them weren't even old enough to have played Fallout when it came out, and you're spouting a line about how well they know Fallout and how they understand it.

How old does one have to be to have played Fallout ever?

R O F L.

This does not make you look smart.

to summarize, you admit that you just expect it, based on NO FACTS AT ALL, and you just tried to talk down the most informed poster (about fallout 3) on these boards with nothing more than your uninformed expectations.

Well based on some facts. Who is the most informed poster? Is that you?

 

[aenemic]

I haven't seen any sign of this variation in Fallout 3 beyond some NPCs being able to use certain types of weapons, and as such it would seem to be a step backward, just like cutting back the limit to 1 party member.

all we know of npc's that will join you is that Dogmeat's in (and we know a lot abou thim) and that one guys name is Jericho. might've been something about a ghoul able to join you, can't really remember. but that's it.

and based on that information you're willing to assume that the various npc's have no variation and all use the same weapons and armor?

 

[whirlingdervish]

based on that information you're willing to assume that the various npc's have no variation and all use the same weapons and armor?

notice the part that says "I haven't seen any sign of..." and the part that says "it would seem".

those would be how I made sure it was obvious that the statement was my opinion based on incomplete information and that it might not really be the case.

Can dogmeat use a gun now? NO?

next!

That friendly fire was an issue.

Friendly fire WAS a gameplay issue, until Fallout 2, when you could adjust how often it would happen to some degree.

In Fallout you could choose not to use Ian or to not stand in front of him after equipping him with a deadly automatic weapon.

Has Bethesda actually ever mentioned that they took this into account when devising the AI for the party members? NO?

So you're just assuming? ok next..

It's more than one, then? Then they know it's an issue.

You're willing to make quite a few assumptions based on that 1+ staff members at Bethesda having played Fallout to some degree.

Yeah, that's real core gameplay shit right there.

never said it was, or as you'd say:
QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT EVER!!1!

I mentioned it because they obviously don't get the most shallow aspect of Fallout, much less the deeper parts like the mechanics of the combat system they intentionally scrapped.

You didn't read what they said on that subject, clearly.

Actually I did. They mentioned that their own employees, that they use as game testers, couldn't figure out the difference between the two so they scrapped the system and made them all positive perks. Perhaps you might need to re-read a few things.

How old does one have to be to have played Fallout ever?

Since we're asking questions to divert the argument even further, and pretend like they are worthwhile replies, how many people that work for Bethesda do you think actually bought Fallout and played it in the past 5 years?

I'd bet you can count them on one hand.

Well based on some facts. Who is the most informed poster? Is that you?

No it's Ausir. He runs the Vault wiki which contains everything there is to know about Fallout 3 at this point in time, and he has an inside source at Bethesda to flesh out that wiki.

You actually tried to naysay someone who has much more in-depth knowledge of Fallout 3 than the average human, with a pathetic assumption based replay concocted from what you expect based on no evidence whatsoever.

btw, isn't quoting someones post one line at a time to reply to it with sound bites, just sooo much fun?!

 

[mandrake776]

Friendly fire WAS a gameplay issue, until Fallout 2, when you could adjust how often it would happen to some degree.

I played Fallout 2 first. It was definitely still a gameplay issue.

You're willing to make quite a few assumptions based on that 1+ staff members at Bethesda having played Fallout to some degree.

I'm making the assumption that if one of 'em played it, he realized that it was an issue. Seeing as I've never met anyone who played it who didn't realize it was an issue, that's not much of a leap.

never said it was, or as you'd say:
QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT EVER!!1!

We're talking about a gameplay issue. Why would you bring up something not related to that?

I mentioned it because they obviously don't get the most shallow aspect of Fallout, much less the deeper parts like the mechanics of the combat system they intentionally scrapped.

It's the most picayune bullshit thing to ever criticize. Oh no, the vault suit isn't skintight! What difference does it make?

Actually I did. They mentioned that their own employees, that they use as game testers, couldn't figure out the difference between the two so they scrapped the system and made them all positive perks. Perhaps you might need to re-read a few things.

I'm now certain you read it, but ran it through your filter to make it come out as bad as it possibly could, regardless of what was actually said.

Since we're asking questions to divert the argument even further, and pretend like they are worthwhile replies, how many people that work for Bethesda do you think actually bought Fallout and played it in the past 5 years?

I'd bet you can count them on one hand.

Yeah, they probably all played it 10 years ago.

You actually tried to naysay someone who has much more in-depth knowledge of Fallout 3 than the average human, with a pathetic assumption based replay concocted from what you expect based on no evidence whatsoever.

Right, so if he had any actual information on the subject he likely would have presented it.

btw, isn't quoting someones post one line at a time to reply to it with sound bites, just sooo much fun?!

It clarifies what's being responded to and helps to organize the conversation.

EDIT: I reread what Ausir said, and you're getting all pissy because he asked me a question and I answered it?

 

[whirlingdervish]

actually, good sir, you're the one getting pissy.

I'm just responding to your weak ass replies that have approximately zero content except for a shit attitude, a bunch of assumptions based on nothing of substance, and a gaggle of strawmen to divert the discussion away from every single instance where you feel like you're "losing at an argument".

read your posts over. you'll see the pattern.


BTW,
Friendly fire alone is not a gameplay issue.

Excessively getting killed by it without any form of alternative action available to you to avoid it, would be a gameplay issue.

That would be why I'd consider it an issue in Fallout (unless you go the path of avoiding Ian), that was remedied in Fallout 2 by the application of controls for your party members, armor for your party, more accurate party members, and more weapon choices so you had more choice in the matter when it came to deciding what you're being shot with, should the occasion arise.

All of this is beside the point tho, since the point was that you are assuming quite a bit about the AI changes from Oblivion to Fallout 3 based on some imagined bethesda employee recognizing one of the problems in FO (a game that few of them played by their own admission) and applying that to what they are doing with FO3.

there is no evidence of this occuring, and very little evidence that they are applying anything from Fallout to Fallout 3 other than some superficial imagery and some names of factions and companies that they can't even keep straight.

 

[mandrake776]

actually, good sir, you're the one getting pissy.

Demonstrably false.

I'm just responding to your weak ass replies that have approximately zero content except for a shit attitude, a bunch of assumptions based on nothing of substance, and a gaggle of strawmen to divert the discussion away from every single instance where you feel like you're "losing at an argument".

I don't misinterpret your arguments on purpose, and any case where I have done so I acknowledge it.

BTW,
Friendly fire alone is not a gameplay issue.

Yes, it is.

Excessively getting killed by it without any form of alternative action available to you to avoid it, would be a gameplay issue.

That would be why I'd consider it an issue in Fallout (unless you go the path of avoiding Ian), that was remedied in Fallout 2 by the application of controls for your party members, armor for your party, more accurate party members, and more weapon choices so you had more choice in the matter when it came to deciding what you're being shot with, should the occasion arise.

Right, so you can give them pea shooters so they don't hurt you if you hit them. Oh, and say try not to hit me (but spray everyone else who's friendly).

All of this is beside the point tho, since the point was that you are assuming quite a bit about the AI changes from Oblivion to Fallout 3 based on some imagined bethesda employee recognizing one of the problems in FO (a game that few of them played by their own admission) and applying that to what they are doing with FO3.

It's one assumption and if I'm wrong, oh well. I'm wrong.

very little evidence that they are applying anything from Fallout to Fallout 3 other than some superficial imagery and some names of factions and companies that they can't even keep straight.

I keep seeing this and it keeps being retarded. No, they didn't keep everything the same. Yes they did keep most of it the same, and they even moved to the other coast so they didn't change the events of the other Fallout games with new continuity. They did that for you, the anal-retentive gamer!

 

[whirlingdervish]

No, they didn't keep everything the same. Yes they did keep most of it the same, and they even moved to the other coast so they didn't change the events of the other Fallout games with new continuity. They did that for you, the anal-retentive gamer!

most of it?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Based on that, I can only conclude that you are:

A: Not serious
B: Blind

or

C: completely batshit insane.

I'm leaning toward C, and I'm going to let you try and troll someone else for a bit.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Actually I did. They mentioned that their own employees, that they use as game testers, couldn't figure out the difference between the two so they scrapped the system and made them all positive perks. Perhaps you might need to re-read a few things.

I'm now certain you read it, but ran it through your filter to make it come out as bad as it possibly could, regardless of what was actually said.

Such a statement needs a quote from the article in question to be legitimate.

 

[Per]

mandrake776 gets a strike for flaming, baiting, being generally pissy and starting fights in several threads. That's two, make the best of it. Ect.

Also,

The rest of you, put up or shut up.

Less flaming and spam from everyone.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

]It's the most picayune bullshit thing to ever criticize. Oh no, the vault suit isn't skintight! What difference does it make?

What difference? In isolation, not much. The point is that many small changes add up to a dramatic overall difference, and that is to ignore - and I hate to bring up this rather prostituted term once again, so make sure you understand what it means everyone - the concept of verisimilitude. In terms of actual effects on gameplay; these things are not game breakers, and certainly not to those who come to the series green, but they do represent a great swing (by degrees) away from the earlier series for many long-term fans.

However, I also go back the point that disregard for verity is often indicative of a deeper failure to really understand one's subject.

Since somebody raised the issue of evolution, then it may also be apt to bring up the concept of speciation; how many small changes are required for the overall change to be so great that a thing is new species entirely?

 

[reticulate]

They've essentially brought SPECIAL over as a carbon copy and modified how perks work.

Heheh. Except that Int doesn't increase dialogue options.
CHA doesn't effect number of followers.
APs have no domain over movement anymore.
ST requirements for guns? No, fatman for everybody!
And that's just the shit we know about, not the shit they're glossing over. Do you people seriously not remember the wholesale bullshit, and false promises they peddled pre-Oblivion release?

Okay:

1) Int doesn't increase dialogue options in Fallout 3, but perks do. Further, the increase in dialogue options wasn't exactly a linear curve in Fallout 1 or 2. It was some arbitrary line that meant you never had to sink more than a few points to ensure you got all the options. I'd rather Int actually effect stuff in a manner that reflects how you'd roll dice, not based on a line in the sand.

2) Followers are great. Until they shoot you in the back, shoot each other in the back, and want stimpaks all the time. I'm actually more satisfied if we get one useful party member than a bunch. Calculating Charisma to see how many party members you get is a great idea in concept, but pretty pointless if the mechanics beyond that aren't so good.

3) AP for movement was (deep breath) the stupidest goddamn thing in the entire Fallout franchise. It essentially required you to die numerous times for no good reason regardless of your intent. Better yet, it meant that if you initiated combat in an area full of people, you could probably go make a cup of coffee and still be watching people move around when you got back, something not even Civilisation required in an endgame. Yep, sacrilege. There you have it. It was the single most annoying thing about the entire franchise, and even Black Isle agreed circa Van Buren.

4) If you don't have the ST to actually carry the thing and some ammo, it's pretty much moot. If you're looking to play a character big on heavy weapons, you need the carry weight and you'll adjust stats accordingly. This is probably a more realistic interpretation of how you'd actually wander about carrying stuff rather than an arbitrary limit based off a number.

I figure at this point someone will try and argue points. That's fine. I'm not trolling or flamebaiting. It's opinion based on observation, and that's all.