Gun "nut" they are not.

H

Holocausto

It Wandered In From the Wastes
What's this another rant against bethesda? Yes. I just have fundamental problems with a game so fundamental flawed such as in the weapons dept in this case. Before I get to it I understand the Fallout universe is sci fi but since it still has items in it which are taken from RL and it's on Earth with all the laws of physics and all that stuff I thought I'd point out something that drives me nuts. Looky



#1 any gun that fires the exact same ammo should do the same damage (give or take a tiny insignificant difference to account for barrel length which can marginally affect velocity). One exception is silenced weapons do indeed reduce velocity slightly and thus you can stretch the #s to say silenced weapons do slightly less damage than regular counterparts.

#2 The .32 cal pistol should be the weakest pistol in the game.

#3 guns don't do more damage by giving them a different name ('scoped 44 mag to blackhawk' for example) Why do I even need to explain something so simple? It's sad really.

I could go on to the rifles & shotguns as they provide even more absurd laughs. Gimme a break.
 
Weapons using the same ammo did different damage in previous Fallouts as well. It's a gameplay convention, doesn't have to be entirely realistic.
 
Ausir said:
Weapons using the same ammo did different damage in previous Fallouts as well. It's a gameplay convention, doesn't have to be entirely realistic.
Click to expand...
I have a new convention they should try. Next time they want gun B to be more powerful than gun A etc etc how bout they depict a gun that actually fires a bigger higher velocity bullet? Why does it HAVE to be so stupid? They could hire a gun expert for 1 day get great detailed info about guns and calibers then fire him at the end of the day if they want. lol, I really don't get what's so hard about consistency but apparently even rudimentary physics is too much to absorb.

On the rifles they have a 44 mag "rifle" & .308 rifle. The 308 is a FULL rifle round which absolutely devastates a 44 mag pistol round (apparently bethesda thinks otherwise). It's just flat out dumb. There's no better way to say it. Oh well what else could I expect really. If they can't get something as simple as that right it's really no wonder about the rest.
 
Dude, it's a game. It's supposed to be versimiliar, not 100% realistic. It's as if you were complaining about wire-fu in Matrix, come on.

That's something literally one in a million would complain about. Implementing your method will basically end in breaking the game balance and rendering all but the highest caliber weapons useless.
 
This lack of detail is evident throughout the game, but because "casual" gamers don't really notice these aspects, bethesda will not bother to waste money on something that will not bring more money.
 
Actually you CAN balance high-powered weapons in games. If your game's economy works at all, you can just use that to balance it.

Also weight, reliability and such can be used as checks and balances. You want to use that .50 cal anti-tank rifle? Fine, but there's barely any ammo available and no scrap rifles to fix it with, so you'll either run out of ammo fast or break it.

It's really more of a case of laziness. In a post-apoc setting you'd expect there to be a large range of calibers around because any gun that works is a good gun -- some places might specialise in one caliber or another but mostly because they only had certain caliber firearms initially.

There's really no reason to assign the calibers THAT randomly. Even though Fallout did it to a degree, it still grouped the calibers in effectiveness: a 10mm cartridge wouldn't suddenly become the ammo for the best rifle there is after only being of any use for the basic pistol and SMG until then.

If your high-power rifle eats through ammo like a starving third-world child through a bag of rice, you'll want to keep that starter pistol with the easily attainable ammo around as long as you can.

Sadly Beth made it pretty clear with the "I can't believe it's not a one-shot weapon" Fatman that they don't care about that kind of balance. No wonder melee tends to be so useless.
 
DexterMorgan said:
He's right about one thing though: the sniper rifle and its hard to find ammo are ridiculously underpowered.
Click to expand...
Actualy if you manage to get sneak attacks with it, its quite powerfull.

What makes the weapon useless is that you can throw it away already after 20 shots. Literaly. And considering how many creatues you have to kill outside in the wasteland ... its just annoying particularly cause if effects the damage you can deal with your weaponi I just hate this weapon degration which is straight copied from Oblivion:roll:
 
Mikael Grizzly said:
Dude, it's a game. It's supposed to be versimiliar, not 100% realistic. It's as if you were complaining about wire-fu in Matrix, come on.

That's something literally one in a million would complain about. Implementing your method will basically end in breaking the game balance and rendering all but the highest caliber weapons useless.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't break the game if certain things were done like rearrange the various guns accessibility points in game and adjust relative damages appropriately, ammo cost/scarcity etc etc. Now it's harder to fix because they've already gone and done what they did but really if they simply spent a little time before and sorted the guns to match their RL values there would be absolutely no problem doing it right from the start. It just shows me that they don't give a damn about even fundamental inconsistencies and are willing to implement laughable irrational & ridiculous things.

Maybe they are assuming most people who play will have absolutely no clue about guns. Unfortunately for those that do it's really irritating & stupid. Anybody want to explain what good reason there is for having RIFLES that are firing .32 cal PISTOL AMMO? So they couldn't be asked to make it believable by having it fire actual rifle ammo? Geez that's a hole nother ammo box model they got to make + you couldn't magically put in 32 cal pistol rounds into rifle. Kids might complain. Why didn't they just have "bullets" and you can put them in ANY gun? Would've been much simpler and since that seems to be the name of the game here beth should've cranked the idiot lever to 'full stupid ahead'.
 
Ashmo said:
Actually you CAN balance high-powered weapons in games. If your game's economy works at all, you can just use that to balance it.

Also weight, reliability and such can be used as checks and balances. You want to use that .50 cal anti-tank rifle? Fine, but there's barely any ammo available and no scrap rifles to fix it with, so you'll either run out of ammo fast or break it.

It's really more of a case of laziness. In a post-apoc setting you'd expect there to be a large range of calibers around because any gun that works is a good gun -- some places might specialise in one caliber or another but mostly because they only had certain caliber firearms initially.

There's really no reason to assign the calibers THAT randomly. Even though Fallout did it to a degree, it still grouped the calibers in effectiveness: a 10mm cartridge wouldn't suddenly become the ammo for the best rifle there is after only being of any use for the basic pistol and SMG until then.

If your high-power rifle eats through ammo like a starving third-world child through a bag of rice, you'll want to keep that starter pistol with the easily attainable ammo around as long as you can.

Sadly Beth made it pretty clear with the "I can't believe it's not a one-shot weapon" Fatman that they don't care about that kind of balance. No wonder melee tends to be so useless.
Click to expand...

I get tired of explaining this to people. :clap:
 
I mostly agree with you. While I will add that there is certainly some "It's a game" parts to it what pissed me off was the rifles using pistol ammunition. Now in a post apoc world it's perfectly possible and very like that weapons would be modified to use common ammo like the .32 or whatever. But it doesn't make a lick of the sense that it should do so much damage. The .32 is a weak caliber certainly weaker than the 10 mm which is an interesting caliber that I won't delve into too much, but it's about the strength of a .40 magnum which is pretty powerful (10 mm is not just 1 > 9mm). I would've like to see more calibers in general, including .50 ae and bmg and .45 acp and different types (AP, JHP, FMJs, maybe even special loads like incendiary rounds), but it's a pretty minor qualm.
 
It's not so much a game breaker as it is a nuisance.

I'm not a gun nut myself, but if you're GOING to put some effort in an air of realism surrounding your guns (e.g. using real-life calibres or models), you might as well put another hour in and look up the real-life stats of those calibres or ask someone who IS a gun nut.

It's not as if they suddenly had this list of guns and calibres that fell out of the sky and couldn't change anything because everything was already set in stone.

While Fallout 1+2 had guns of the same calibre with different damage ranges, at least they were SIMILAR (10mm pistol vs SMG) and the ammo followed some kind of logical hierarchy (10mm < .44 < .223 < 2mm EC).

Sadly Beth's treatment of guns is symptomatic and just another example among so many others (e.g. exploding cars and harmless radiation, just to name a few).
 
What's really "funny" is that if they actually cared to put some effort into the guns and have all sorts of various ones which take different ammo the game would immediately become much more survival oriented (which I love). You'd have to conserve ammo and use weapons wisely for ex don't waste rifle rounds on teeny tiny foes when you can use much easier to come by .32 ammo (let's just say). Also get caught out in the wasteland with a good gun but no ammo for it= too bad for you better find/buy some if you can and if not you'll have to make do with what you have.


I can go on and on about how damage and locational shots could open up great interesting possibilities..for ex let's pretend you can wound rather than just outright kill NPCs (bad guy takes 1 to the leg/arm/hand you get the idea). Well they could be incapacitated while you walk up and CHOOSE to do something like leave them to bleed out (save ammo) finish them off (ruthless) have a little "chat" with them to maybe reveal some info to you about a stash etc in return for their life etc.. WHATEVER!!! I mean really it ain't that f..king difficult to think of interesting possibilities creating immensely more credible, interesting and deep game.

I have to refrain from going apeshit on bethesda as I don't want to go full out on a public forum of what I think of them...*sigh* *teeth grinding*
 
Actually, it's not that difficult to account for non-lethal combat either.

For example, NPCs could make a quick threat assessment of you and decide (say, depending on a personal variable) whether it's too great: e.g. how many times you would need to hit them with your weapon in order to kill you, how well you are armoured and what their armament and armour is like in comparison. With that kind of logic in place you could even bluff by equipping a scary weapon that happens to be nearly out of ammo.

You could add modifiers for situations where the NPC is in a group, but that doesn't need to be a full assessment of "them vs us", because it wouldn't break the fourth wall much if under-armed raiders run away even when they have the advantage of numbers (and could defeat you at the cost of most of their lives -- a risk most people wouldn't take) or high-tech BoS-ish soldiers always attack you as long as there's a good chance to kill you on your own even when you have assistance.

If you can make NPCs APPEAR smart, players will assume smart behaviour where there is none, so they won't notice if the NPCs don't always act completely rational (then again, real humans don't either).

Of course the calculation could be tweaked: animals mostly wouldn't recognise the threat of weapons or armour, but they'd still sometimes flee when they realise they can't win the fight. A shot taking out half your health would be a good reason to leg it, for example.
 
That would work, actually, that would be rather great system.
Of course they would only see equipped armour/weapons.
Oh, and also, maybe there should be a night time modifier, that makes the humanoid enemies make miss calculations randomly to +/- side, as in night time its hard to estimate things, making it even more alive. Also there should be a modifier based on the type of humanoid and its capability to see and how it "thinks".
Like ghouls wouldnt see as well as humans,so they would be cautious (all that radiation and years has had an effect), humans would have modifier value 0(unless theya are tagged "insane" then its -x threat) and supermutants would mostly underestimate the player with - x threat value, as they consider to be "superior" when compared to humans, although only if the player isnt wearing PA. They arent stupid.
 
Ashmo said:
Actually, it's not that difficult to account for non-lethal combat either.

For example, NPCs could make a quick threat assessment of you and decide (say, depending on a personal variable) whether it's too great: e.g. how many times you would need to hit them with your weapon in order to kill you, how well you are armoured and what their armament and armour is like in comparison. With that kind of logic in place you could even bluff by equipping a scary weapon that happens to be nearly out of ammo.

You could add modifiers for situations where the NPC is in a group, but that doesn't need to be a full assessment of "them vs us", because it wouldn't break the fourth wall much if under-armed raiders run away even when they have the advantage of numbers (and could defeat you at the cost of most of their lives -- a risk most people wouldn't take) or high-tech BoS-ish soldiers always attack you as long as there's a good chance to kill you on your own even when you have assistance.

If you can make NPCs APPEAR smart, players will assume smart behaviour where there is none, so they won't notice if the NPCs don't always act completely rational (then again, real humans don't either).

Of course the calculation could be tweaked: animals mostly wouldn't recognise the threat of weapons or armour, but they'd still sometimes flee when they realise they can't win the fight. A shot taking out half your health would be a good reason to leg it, for example.
Click to expand...
Yep, lol. You could literally create a vast amount of interesting possibilities/interactions and a game unto itself just by realizing in game, complex psychology, human vs animal behavior & many variables that affect their demeanor. Is the NPC drunk, high, insane all of the above and on and on.. Also on the physical side: locational damage, whether the NPC has armor or not (and what grade is it) whether you hit an unarmored spot on a heavily armored foe and drop them with 1 lucky round that skirts through. Armor wear/damage. Who (if anybody) has better or worse night vision. Weapon jams (for you & NPCs) which trigger different NPC responses based on conditions etc etc.
 
That's why I said the result would be compared to a personal variable. I'm perpetually working on my own RPG in which I'm using a calculation like that to make combat less stupid.

The idea is that most NPCs wouldn't shoot you if you only hit them with a melee weapon unless they can't win the fight otherwise and you're threatening their life. Also they won't attempt to kill you unless they hate you enough (e.g. if you kill one of their friends or really pissed off their faction).

Having to slaughter a whole town because you were caught stealing is rather pointless, even more so if you're in Power Armour and they're armed with pitchforks.
 
Ashmo said:
Having to slaughter a whole town because you were caught stealing is rather pointless, even more so if you're in Power Armour and they're armed with pitchforks.
Click to expand...
LMAO! Wait, so the whole town tries to kill you if you are caught stealing? I guess Stalin was the AI programmer.
 
Actually, I think, Beth's problem tends to be the LACK of reaction mixed with the already existing over-reactions.

The problem is, of course, what to do if the townsfolk has no reasonable chance of defeating you, but you set your mind on slaughtering them one-by-one?

Obviously, any guards there are should try to regroup (except for the odd one being too scared to do their job) and kill you whereas peasants should just run away or cower and plead for their lives, but that would require preparing the NPCs for such an occasion and somehow most game devs these days don't think players will ever want to do anything than what they are told to -- case in point: getting stuck in various games for not obeying the linear mission progress.

Also, one problem Fallout 1+2 had was that fleeing NPCs would initiate combat mode, angering the player and making their own death even more inevitable. If you're not going to attack, don't initiate combat -- just run. And don't run over the exit grid if you're not going to exit -- it's just unfair to the player.
 
As a gun nut, I can say the lack of firearms accuracy annoys me, both in the original Fallouts and in any other game that takes a lazy approach. It would be one thing if there were minor errors; I don't expect perfection when it comes to muzzle velocities, penetration, and angles of deflection. It becomes a problem, though, when there's no attempt to even come close to reality - particularly in a game where firearms play a significant role.

Bottom Line: it really wouldn't be that hard to get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top