GamesRadar - The Infinite Potential of Fallout 3

[Ausir]

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

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

Todd said they removed traits because they thought they were too similar (even though the differences were pretty obvious and important). And they did remove negative effects of both traits (the ones they converted into perks) and drugs (aside from addiction, which can now be easily cured by a doctor).

Ok, time for some, perhaps, bad news. Traits have been rolled into Perks. That was a hard decision for us, and one that took, literally, years. We kept coming back to it, and re-discussing it, and once we were playing the game, found that the difference between the two systems was so similar that even half the entries in the community "design a perk" contest were actually traits. Take "Bloody Mess" for example, probably the most famous trait. Is the game really more fun if that can only be taken at the very start? Why can't you pick it at level 6? What's so important about having it only at the start? The perk choice is probably one of the most fun parts of the game, and to relegate certain ones to only be chosen when you first start, before you've even played the game and know how any of it feels, just didn't prove as fun to us. How do you know you want Bloody Mess if you haven't seen how bloody the current mess is? (did I just type that?) Anyway, trust me when I say this one was a debate, a long one, and a decision we're not naive enough to think will be understood or applauded by everyone.

Using the contest as a proof is pretty silly, especially that many of the contestants probably haven't even played the original Fallouts.

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.

But why do you assume that the party member AI will be any better than in FO2?

If anything, I expect them to just remove friendly fire altogether, which is not better AI, it's lazy design.

and even Black Isle agreed circa Van Buren.

Huh? The default combat mode in Van Buren was still going to be turn-based, with movement based on APs.

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.

Except that ammo is weightless now, which is hardly realistic.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

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.

Not sacrilege, but it does suggest that you aren't a fan of tactical, turnbased combat. AP requirements for movement, or some other form of movement cost, are essential in turn-based combat. Otherwise, any range-related bonuses in defence or attack are nullified by a character being able to rush their opponent.

There are other was to impose limitations, but having the same cost system for both movement and actions simplifies the interface (and is more intuitively realistic).

On the other hand, if you're thinking of reallocating those APs saved by not having a movement cost, to actions (to make combat deadlier and faster), then you're essentially creating end-to-end combat; the tactical element is lost.

Notably, any of those changes will be as much of a problem to the player character, as to their opponent.

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.

If you want an element of realism, then a cost to both carrying and firing a weapon is it. A small-frame shouldn't simply limit accuracy, it should completely prevent a person from being able to level and fire a weapon, as it would in the real world.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Well actually, he can believe that it's a Fallout game. What made Fallout, 'Fallout', for you might be different than what made 'Fallout' for him.

Gameplay and atmosphere made fallout for me, and FO3 changes this a lot. Not that it's bad, but it's different.

I have hope for the atmosphere part though, I quite like the atmosphere we've seen in FO3.

 

[mandrake776]

Sorry mandrake776 but you cant be a Fallout fan

I'm pretty sure I can be.

about FINO3 is going to be a great game and is almost identical to FO1/2

I definitely didn't say either of those things.

 

[Ureshi]

Well actually, he can believe that it's a Fallout game. What made Fallout, 'Fallout', for you might be different than what made 'Fallout' for him.

Gameplay and atmosphere made fallout for me, and FO3 changes this a lot. Not that it's bad, but it's different.

I have hope for the atmosphere part though, I quite like the atmosphere we've seen in FO3.

..............then u are a post-apocaliptic fan... u love the atmosphere of the game (apocaliptic) u love to wander the wastes and kill or save people... but that is not Fallout.. that is only a tiny part of it...


PD: my english is poor so think before read sorry the "cant" maybe is not the word i want to say... sorry...

 

[whirlingdervish]

I kind of agree with you on that point, thefalloutfan

Based on what I have seen so far, there are some atmospheric elements that have been preserved from the original Fallout games, such as the curvy robot designs in a few of their models and the architectural decorations on some of the buildings.

I also really like the way some of the cars look, and how they seem to preserve a lot of the same feel of the corvega and chrysalis highwayman: that 50's-esque cars of the future feel.

If they had spent as much time emulating the core gameplay mechanics and the design goals of the originals as they did on making stuff like the vault look similar to the originals, I would probably be a lot happier with it and much more likely to buy it.

I'd also be more likely to consider it a sequel to fallout and not just another installment in the franchise. (there is a difference)

 

[Ausir]

..............then u are a post-apocaliptic fan... u love the atmosphere of the game (apocaliptic) u love to wander the wastes and kill or save people... but that is not Fallout.. that is only a tiny part of it...

People can be fans of the Fallout setting alone, without being fond of the gameplay mechanics. Accusing others of not being "true fans" is pretty pointless.

 

[mandrake776]

That stuff is what I'm referring to when I say that it's more similar to than differing from.

I just think that the change from turn based to first person is a positive one. Or at least a value neutral change.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Well actually, he can believe that it's a Fallout game. What made Fallout, 'Fallout', for you might be different than what made 'Fallout' for him.

Gameplay and atmosphere made fallout for me, and FO3 changes this a lot. Not that it's bad, but it's different.

I have hope for the atmosphere part though, I quite like the atmosphere we've seen in FO3.

..............then u are a post-apocaliptic fan... u love the atmosphere of the game (apocaliptic) u love to wander the wastes and kill or save people... but that is not Fallout.. that is only a tiny part of it...


PD: my english is poor so think before read sorry the "cant" maybe is not the word i want to say... sorry...

Not really, no. I think I can call myself a fan. I love Fallout, I loved almost everything in fallout, and I spent a huge amount of time playing the games.

 

[Ausir]

I just think that the change from turn based to first person is a positive one.

You mean from iso to first person and from turn based to real time?

 

[thefalloutfan]

By gameplay I meant the isometric and turn based combat. I loved that in the games. ISO/TB is not better than TPP/RT, they're just different. I would have preferred FO3 to be ISO/TB, not because it's better, but because I expect a game series to continue using the core gameplay mechanics.

That said, I'm still looking forward to FO3, hopefully a decent game at least.

 

[mandrake776]

You mean from iso to first person and from turn based to real time?

Yeah, sorry. Got distracted

I would have preferred FO3 to be ISO/TB, not because it's better, but because I expect a game series to continue using the core gameplay mechanics.

I see this a lot, and I'm not sure where it comes from. I mean, sure, that's usually what happens, but it's not a deciding factor in whether the game is good or not.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Oh, goodie! Let's see.

They are wrong about Galactica. Just as you are about Fallout 3.

And how exactly did you find this out? Funny, you don't agree which is your right, but you also think exactly the opposite? Let me try it too: You're wrong.
So this is how it works....

Game series have to evolve or they die.

Show me the evolution from Fallout 2 to 3. I dare you to. And please, evolution... not adaptation. We're not discussing Darwin's theory here.

but there's seriously like 15 people in the whole world who have even heard of fallout (yes, that's hyperbole)

Boring, boring, boring. Take a look at your local game store and tell me what old games are still present besides Diablo and StarCraft. Oh, I think it's Fallout 1 and 2. Guess what, cutiepie? Fallout is still re-released. Must be for a reason, no?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

Think maybe? Good things come out of that. It's pretty obvious that not all games should be shooters... but not to you apparently.

you can't just keep putting out the same game with a fresh coat of paint

A true sequel is not the same game as before. Are you able to comprehend a simple thing as that? Fallout 2 had a different story, had plenty of improvements and despite its flaws was a very good sequel and a whole new game.
Do you really think that if Fallout 3 would've been a true sequel it wouldn't have sold well? Probably not as good as the FPS that Fallout 3 is now, but still... if they wouldn't have spent that much on hype they would probably still have made a good profit.
Although not in your world where firs-person=evolution, that's certain.

They put it in a trailer to show that you can use anything, and that it's funny.

It's not funny and it's stupid whether you can kill people with teddy bears or not.

o my character is always knocking shit down all over the place in Oblivion.

Ah, the "awesome" Gamebryo engine and Bethesda's incredibly poor usage of the Havok physics engine. Let's makes games with less and less interactivity now, even though in the so much touted 3D it's so easy to do it, because Bethesda are a bunch of incompetents.

Ok, the kid killing thing is just plain creepy now. Seriously, it make you look like crazy people.

Todd, is that you? "Why would you want to kill kids?" is a great line. Stick to it.

Arguing that the game is not as good because you cannot murder children is fucking creepy.

We're actually arguing that Fallout 3 offers less freedom than the previous ones. Get it?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

..............then u are a post-apocaliptic fan... u love the atmosphere of the game (apocaliptic) u love to wander the wastes and kill or save people... but that is not Fallout.. that is only a tiny part of it...

People can be fans of the Fallout setting alone, without being fond of the gameplay mechanics. Accusing others of not being "true fans" is pretty pointless.

One can be a fan of game's setting but not it's gameplay and vice-versa but that doesn't make them a fan of the game, it makes them a fan of the game's gameplay or setting. That said, most people don't hate all of a game's setting or all of a game's gameplay but rather parts, how important those parts are is part of what matters most. For example, I am a fan of FFX's gameplay because I think it's well designed (for the most part) and fun but I hate the game's plot/setting (or rather significant parts of it). Does this make me a fan of FFX? Of course not, I dislike enough of the game that if all that I disliked was removed, the game's plot would be near unrecognizable.

The idea that one has to like everything or nothing is rediculous but so is the idea that if someone likes only pieces of the game while disliking or hating the rest, they are a fan. Every game has it's flaws and no one is going to like all of any game.

That said, not everyone who's looking foward to Fallout 3 or thinks that it's a sequel hates the previous games' gameplay.

I would have preferred FO3 to be ISO/TB, not because it's better, but because I expect a game series to continue using the core gameplay mechanics.

I see this a lot, and I'm not sure where it comes from. I mean, sure, that's usually what happens, but it's not a deciding factor in whether the game is good or not.

But it is part of whether a game is a sequel or not. No one is arguing that the game will be a bad game because it's FPP, people are arguing that it will be a bad sequel because it's FPP.

 

[Ausir]

They are wrong about Galactica. Just as you are about Fallout 3.

Actually, they are right about Galactica. It is not faithful to the original. Which is good, because the new version is much better. And yes, many people might say the same thing about Fallout 3. However, the main difference is that no one ever pretended that the new Battlestar Galactica is a sequel to the old one.

 

[PlanHex]

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?

I think that's why that discussion was stillborn; my poor wording.
Trying to say "an ostrich isn't a salmon" by saying "birds didn't evolve from fish" is a pretty bad idea, because someone is bound to stop by and say "hey dude everything came from single-celled microorganisms".

edit: Also, can everyone please go read this? http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=21

 

[Ausir]

Trying to say "an ostrich isn't a salmon" by saying "birds didn't evolve from fish" is a pretty bad idea, because someone is bound to stop by and say "hey dude everything came from single-celled microorganisms".

I don't quite get the point here. Birds did evolve from fish (through amphibians and reptiles).

 

[Casual Gamer]

They are wrong about Galactica. Just as you are about Fallout 3.

Actually, they are right about Galactica. It is not faithful to the original. Which is good, because the new version is much better. And yes, many people might say the same thing about Fallout 3. However, the main difference is that no one ever pretended that the new Battlestar Galactica is a sequel to the old one.

Well, if Fallout 3 was called "Fallout" I'm guessing the reaction here would be...well, not any more positive.

Also: does anyone remember this:

In the end the specific aspects of the rules system, the game perspective, the locations, all of those don't matter when it comes to making a Fallout game. It is the feeling of Fallout. It's the Overseer kicking you out, it's getting to kill both Killian and Gizmo, getting to play at being Mad Max, having Dogmeat around and winning the game the way you want to win it."

 

[Ausir]

Well, if Fallout 3 was called "Fallout" I'm guessing the reaction here would be...well, not any more positive.

Which is why I agree with Michael Rymer (a director of the new BSG miniseries and many episodes), who did say that he hated the original BSG and who himself does think it shouldn't have been called "Battlestar Galactica".

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

That's funny, I think Rymer and Moore and pretty much ripping of an old show, using characters, some ideas, insert current day politics and have loads of people kissing their asses.

Oh yes, Cylon sexbots annoying the fucking hell out of you with God, and how he gave the Cylons a soul and that humans should die.

THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO BE ROBOTS!

Now they're Moore's fantasy for a lifelike sex doll.