This could be fixed in two steps though ;
Stimpacks are more expensive
Stimpacks are rarer to find
Is Fallout: New Vegas a worthy Fallout game?
- Thread starter Lucas9
- Start date
This could be fixed in two steps though ;
Stimpacks are more expensive
Stimpacks are rarer to find
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
3D was never the problem; it was how they used the 3D that ruined it. The term 3D has a problem, in that quite a shocking number of people believe that 3D actually means first person, when it doesn't.... and despite there being many 2D first person games.
The problem centers around ~basically gutting the IP to dress a first person shooter with only it's trappings, and none of its heart and or precepts in the gameplay. Setting aside the abominable loss of the signature combat mechanics, the rest of the game has become (was intentionally designed) as a theme park simulator... The very concept essentially ripped straight from the movie Westworld; that's what Bethesda offers... and it's what you get... The PCs in FO3 & 4 ~are the players, and they behave just like the park guests in the movie; because they are in on it, and treat it like a fantasy vacation where they are the most important thing in the world, and do whatever the hell they want. This is the money-maker for the studio, and it's what ruined IP since their ghastly stewardship began; and they've never let up, and they keep furthering it into the ground.
This is what Bethesda had in mind [and one can hear it from their own mouths]:
It seems impossible to link to an offset starting time now... The statements begin @:54 seconds in. The forum strips out standard links to Youtube, and replaces them with unwanted media embeds.
As you seem to think it's not. Well... Consider that the core developers [the team that INVENTED all of it], considered the turn based nature of the game as core ~even for the future Fallout's that they planned, dreamed, and/or hoped to be able to make. The intention of the game was the built around it, and indeed they built the combat engine first ~before devising some kind of world setting and lore to dress it in. It was GURPS lite on the PC; forcibly changed last minute (to the SPECIAL system) over period of two weeks, in order to not get canceled when they lost the license over concerns of the extreme violence in the game.
This is a disturbingly popular misconception by a large number of people [who don't know how to play the game; or other games like it]. It is an abstraction. Time from the combatant's perspective, is not segmented into rounds ~that is for player benefit alone. [IE. no one stands idly by as they are shot, stabbed, or hit with a hammer; that is simply how the game presents the seconds to the player. While not technically concurrent, the actions of all should be considered so.]
The point [and pleasure] of a turn based combat game is the very opposite of your stated ideal... it is to NOT think on the run, but to be afforded the luxury of time to contemplate the entire situation; to examine, and to eventually realize the best course of action that the PC might have available to them... and then try to make it happen. Turn based combat games were not designed such due to some falsely assumed technology limitation ~they are supposed to be like that; that's how they work. Shoehorning TES gameplay into the Fallout series [with FO3] is no different than shoehorning Fallout's gameplay into TES or DOOM. Each game's mechanics would break the other, and lose sight of the point. [As happened with FO3]
That is true of any game, using any mechanics. 2d and 3d are merely methods of presentation. Neither style is inherently realtime BTW.
But since you mention it... Have you played SpaceMarine? It's a decent third person hack-n-slash; I enjoyed it for what it was, but was shocked to learn that there are people out there that would assume that Spacemarine could [should!?] be a suitable sequel to 'Dawn of War'. Most argument on Bethsoft ~when semi-lucid seemed to state that merely using the IP setting qualifies any game to be a 'faithful' sequel... which is nuts, because they can be entirely unrelated games ~aside from having the same line of fiction as window dressing. Do you see why a die-hard DoW player would scoff the hell out of a [disappointing] sequel had Spacemarine been rebranded before release as Dawn of War 3?
But it is.
Last edited:
Lucas9
Still Mildly Glowing
Exactly. That's the really the only true advantage I see to games like Fallout that use a fixed perspective not focused on the player. By that I mean that low Guns skill had much more of an impact in the isometric titles than it does in the 3D titles, where player skill is much more important (if not the only thing that is important) in determining how much of a good gunslinger you are.
First of all, while I appreciate your observations on Bethesda's titles, this is really a thread about New Vegas, but most importantly, an observation about whether the fanbase would accept a properly made first person 3D Fallout game, or isometric really is the only way to make a Fallout game.
That said: Fallout 1 and 2 were made almost two decades ago. It's hard for me to make the distinction on whether Interplay/Black Isle went with isometric because they thought it was really the best way to make an RPG (which I personally think it is), or whether it is because they went with it "just because we need a way to play this game" (of course this would be a gross understatement, I don't mean it in the way of "hey guys, what perspective should we use? Isometric? Cool, let's roll with that", just that the playing field wasn't exactly in favor of FPS back then).
Another observation to make is whether isometric is really that important to Fallout. At what point does isometric turn from "it is really good for RPGs" to "it's the only way to make RPGs", or in this case, "it's the only way to make a Fallout game"?
I think it's really up to the devs who made Fallout to answer that question.
I understand this, and as I explained, both systems work on fundamentally different premises:
- The isometric premise, as you explained: think before you act, think as you can, get satisfaction as your plan comes to fruition.
- The first person shooter premise, as I explained: think before you act, improvise as you act because no one is a chess piece and you can't predict what will happen, get satisfaction as you managed to improvise just right to survive.
Personally I'm a man of the latter. I love not knowing how a fight will play out. The issue with Bethesda's games (and NV as an extension of Fallout 3) is that combat is boring and doesn't pose a challenge at all.
Gothic's by comparison is awesome.
Lastly, when I say "3D", I really mean to say "3D first person", which in the case of Fallout naturally translates to "3D first person shooter".
I haven't played SpaceMarine or Dawn of War.
3D first person shooters aren't, though.
Also, for anyone interested, I posted this exact same poll in RPG Codex. It's incredible how different the opinions are from one forum to the other, especially considering NMA is the one who gets the most flak about "old dinosaurs".
CaptJ
The Rival of Roquefort Hall
Unless you keep the total amount Stimpaks limited, this would only alleviate the problem.
FO:T had some necessary improvements to the combat system but I wish that it was a Real-time and Turn-based hybrid instead of completely one or the other. A Turn-based system couldn't allow for simultaneous ambush attack. Also, fighting the Hubologists is a pain because you can't exit the combat mode until everyone else in the floor is dead.
Well yeah but i thought that new vegas had that in hardcore mode already but i dunno i've never played in hardcore mode
CaptJ
The Rival of Roquefort Hall
I think that you are thinking JSawyer mod. I question his insistence on retconning perfected homebrew Stimpaks.
BTW: Play the Hardcore mode. After playing it, I realized that this is how the devs intended the game to be played. Still, I would recommend that you install some mods on top of that.
I do see what you mean and i have played on hardcore mode but not for the whole game not just little segments ect. I'm building my mod to be played on hardcore mode and/or with specif mods such as sawyers ect
The mods i play with include eating animation so you can't spam food in the middle of battle witch super good mod
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
Fixed perspective isn't really part of it. Van Buren would have been 3D rotatable, and Troika's FO3 ~on spec... was fully 3D; [and glorious]... But you are absolutely right about the rest of it.
That really hinges on 'properly'. I don't think anyone wanted anything but a 3D FO3/NV/FO4... but as you mention, 3D does not equal FPS. I'd have wanted a FO3 done as an FPS, like I'd want a Quake 5 as done a Magic The Gathering [virtual card game] clone.
Actually they did answer it. They also mentioned that they looked into doing it as 3D/isometric [polygons], but there it really was that most gamers did not have the hardware to run the game in 3D at a decent frame rate. As for the isometry, I'd think that should be terribly obvious.
*With GURPS being a huge hint.
Different premises, and with different aims; [goals]. The contention is the different goals. As wrong as it is to strip out the series guts like they did... Both games could have partially redeemed themselves, had they at least used a combat system similar to SuperHott; though it's no substitute.
Gothic is awesome.
DOW : Spacemarine
This is why Fallout games are not supposed to be 3D first person shooters.
CaptJ
The Rival of Roquefort Hall
I really like FO:NV's attempt to balance the skills by merged some of them like First-Aid and Doctor. Still, I wish that they split Speech to Persuasion and Deception like they originally planned for Van Buren. The Faction armor system was annoying and the removal of the Trap skill was a wasted opportunity with the inclusion of land mines and bear traps. In another note, I don't get the Gun and Energy Weapon divide. In FO1/2, I was confused whether the Gatling Laser was a Big Gun or Energy Weapon. I think that a Big Gun and Small Gun divide would make more sense.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I never liked the merging of First-Aid and Doctor. First-Aid is basically Sport's medicine, and minor bandaging. Doctor is for critical injuries and esoteric medical knowledge. By merging those skills (as is always the case with merging any skills
), it means that ~now everybody is a surgeon, and never a nurse. 
Mechanically [in FO1&2], it meant that the PC had six heal attempts, but only three for critical injuries in any one day. It meant prioritizing who got what treatment, and possibly no treatment. It also meant that critical injuries were less trivial to heal.
Now [absurdly, IMO] the Medical skill heals concussions and broken bones with a shot [can't use it without one!!], and it makes drugs more effective per dose... as if taking one aspirin is enough ~if given by someone else, but if you take it yourself, you need two.
Lucas9
Still Mildly Glowing
Yeah, I'm sorry, it's just that sometimes I'm a bit lazy in describing in depth what I mean.
Actually they did answer it. They also mentioned that they looked into doing it as 3D/isometric [polygons], but there it really was that most gamers did not have the hardware to run the game in 3D at a decent frame rate. As for the isometry, I'd think that should be terribly obvious.
*With GURPS being a huge hint.
Those miniatures make me wish for a Fallout tabletop RPG, if only so I could buy it and place them somewhere in my desk.
Seeing this made me remember something else: it's not about "nostalgia", but I sincerely understand why people may prefer isometric over FPS, regardless of conveniences for an RPG. It's pretty much why I dislike the new 3D approach of Pokémon, it doesn't look like the game I used to play, and in many ways it even looks uglier and less polished that before. Feels like a different franchise entirely. There's beauty in the traditional Fallout games, beauty that just isn't there in the new ones (unless heavily modded).
Chaito
Led Storm.
Yes it is.
And a really good one.
And a really good one.
joevonzombie
Buried alive in Golgotha
Fallout New Vegas is the best modern Fallout game we're going to get under the current circumstances, warts and all.
Fallout New Vegas is probably my favourite of the series (it's actually pretty tied with the first Fallout).
It certainly is a better game overall than F3 and especially F4.
It also fits in nicely as being an epilogue of sorts to the duology that is Fallout 1&2.
While I enjoyed and still enjoy Fallout 3, it feels more like an alpha to New Vegas.
Yet I would be happy with New Vegas being the last of the series. It has a nice ending point which doesn't drag out the franchise's story too much and ties a nice bow on things.
It leaves it open, but I think this was meant to be the point of the series.
It wasn't about what happens, it's about how our actions effect the rest of the Wasteland, and what better way to end a series than to leave our actions open, like take our experiences with us and allow us to form our own ending.
It certainly is a better game overall than F3 and especially F4.
It also fits in nicely as being an epilogue of sorts to the duology that is Fallout 1&2.
While I enjoyed and still enjoy Fallout 3, it feels more like an alpha to New Vegas.
Yet I would be happy with New Vegas being the last of the series. It has a nice ending point which doesn't drag out the franchise's story too much and ties a nice bow on things.
It leaves it open, but I think this was meant to be the point of the series.
It wasn't about what happens, it's about how our actions effect the rest of the Wasteland, and what better way to end a series than to leave our actions open, like take our experiences with us and allow us to form our own ending.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Fallout New Vegas is a fantastic game. I loved the emphasis on factions and their conflict rather then an epic quest to defeat evil. It's like Fallout 2, but they smartened up and got rid of the Enclave, asking you to decide who gets control of the Wasteland.
FalloutFan85
First time out of the vault
Does a bear shit in the woods?
DirtyOldShoe
Some kind of lucky
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
Do dog boners drag weeds?
CaptJ
The Rival of Roquefort Hall
Both First-Aid and Doctor were underdeveloped as skills and there were always enough Stimpaks to go around. What I hate about it was how much in game time those actions would take. I feel like FO:T fixed a lot of the problems of the combat system like how First-Aid works and how Quick Pockets works. Too bad the game isn't much of an RPG.I never liked the merging of First-Aid and Doctor. First-Aid is basically Sport's medicine, and minor bandaging. Doctor is for critical injuries and esoteric medical knowledge. By merging those skills (as is always the case with merging any skills
Besides; from where I'm from, you can proceed to Medicine after taking a Nursing course. Hacking on the other hand has very little to do Chemistry yet they get merged together into Science.
I do get the point of the skill system in FO1/2. Skills like Melee Weapon and Unarmed start out with a high starting value but they are significantly less useful than Small Gun or Big Gun. The big problem is when people choose them as Tag Skills. The default characters were designed with crippling flaws in mind just like the original GURPS. However; unlike GURPS, Fallout doesn't have Quirks which are negative traits. I feel game builds are no fun if there are no bad builds. However, I despise the inflexibility of Skill Trees.
