Jeff Gardiner and Anchorage screenshots

[Dionysus]

Seriously, Dionysus, here you have several people telling you the same thing. I'm not sure why you're just so stubborn as to not accept it.

What are you talking about? I’m aware that the "kill-the-monster" quests are often optional. I’m just using them as an extreme example of completely combat-focused quests that I didn’t find in FO3, but found frequently in the Witcher. And a couple dozen is quite a few, even for the Witcher.

For me, the really confusing thing is that those are just the extreme examples. The rest of the game (including the main quest) is full of forced combat. I killed countless men and monsters. I fought a bunch of unavoidable bosses. I even checked a walkthrough, because it sounds like you played an entirely different game. I wish I was wrong. I'd love to hear how you avoided slaughtering the Salamandra or snuck by the Hellhound.

As far as I remember, sneak in FO3 does not work well at all (I had a chara with 100 stealth) and you end up fighting anyways, and speech barely ever helps.

Well, this might be part of our disconnect. I didn't have a big problem with the stealth in FO3 (it was tougher than the combat, though). For example, I can sneak through Raven Rock without using a stealthboy. It's not that hard. I definitely would be more inclined to agree with you if I never used stealth.

However, I'd rather call that a good ARPG than a game that has largely everything linked to fighting.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think it's combat obsessed and it's a good ARPG. It's not my favorite, but it's good.

 

[Ausir]

Thing is, I can tell you as a fan of the Witcher books that being able to avoid all combat wouldn't make sense for a Witcher game. It really had to have some combat you couldn't avoid for it to be a good adaptation of the source material. On the other hand, Fallout 3's source material is quite different in its approach to combat.

 

[Corvin]

Sounds something like the rationalization that people who like the tiniest bit of Fallout 3 frequently get accused of.

I thoroughly enjoy The Witcher books. The game's okay. It isn't the icon that people make it (or Deus Ex) out to be. I just don't feel the need to nitpick it.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ Well, I'm not trying to make it into an icon. However, it is one of the better RPGs released in the last two years. It's just that I laugh when someone tries to claim that the Witcher game is largely about combat and lacks in other respects. Compared to FO3 it's both a better game and a better RPG. The only thing FO3 beats it in might be GFX.

What are you talking about? I’m aware that the "kill-the-monster" quests are often optional. I’m just using them as an extreme example of completely combat-focused quests that I didn’t find in FO3, but found frequently in the Witcher. And a couple dozen is quite a few, even for the Witcher.

Well, I have played through the game and I never once got the feeling that the game was focused on the combat. In fact, just like the character in the game, you only feel you need to fight when it cannot be avoided.

In FO3 the ratio of quests that have you fight stuff to finish the quest is larger. Half of Moira's quests end up to be that (and no better than the Witcher contracts, if not worse - remember the mirelurk quest). Also, I'd like to hear how you snuck by the Mutant Behemoth at GNR. I don't want to argue that Witcher does not have more or less combat than FO3, but that it, unlike FO3, is not combat-centered. Consider all the random fights in FO3. Also, in Witcher, most rewards come not from killing (especially since you can't loot stuff other than food and alchemic ingredients), unlike in FO3.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Thing is, I can tell you as a fan of the Witcher books that being able to avoid all combat wouldn't make sense for a Witcher game. It really had to have some combat you couldn't avoid for it to be a good adaptation of the source material. On the other hand, Fallout 3's source material is quite different in its approach to combat.

Exactly. And to add something to it the dialogues and msot of the quests you have in the Witcher actualy make a lot more sense compared to almost anything in Fallout 3.

The quality of writting is definetly better and more mature (and I am not talking about the sexual content or the swearing just to make that clear).

The guys who made the game have some skill with writting they sure had a great model with the books which made some things easier but they shure could not copy paste everything out of it considering NPCs and Geralds dialogues so they definetly had to come up with many own things. Fighting is part of the game and its story. But it definetly was not selfserving or a end in it self and was only a tool while Fallout 3 promote combat a lot more [just compare videos about the Witcher with those of Fallout 3. What can you see? Yes fighting. Lots of. And poping brains. But no dialogues. Nothing nada. The Witcher sold as ARPG as well offered some conversations and showed locations without combat. Fallout 3 not so much]

Considering the past and intention behind Fallout 1/2 with its roots in the PnP idea (which can be easily seen by quotes from the original devs) there should have been just as much emphasis on diplomacy as on combat in use with the right skills.

 

[Dionysus]

Thing is, I can tell you as a fan of the Witcher books that being able to avoid all combat wouldn't make sense for a Witcher game. It really had to have some combat you couldn't avoid for it to be a good adaptation of the source material. On the other hand, Fallout 3's source material is quite different in its approach to combat.

If you are right about the nature of the books, then I completely agree. The Witcher should be combat obsessed, and FO3 definitely could have done a better job of incorporating more adventure-game elements and noncombat skill checks into quests.

Well, I have played through the game and I never once got the feeling that the game was focused on the combat. In fact, just like the character in the game, you only feel you need to fight when it cannot be avoided.

Yeah, but it can't be avoided on a regular basis. Seriously, what game are you playing? It has nice noncombat quests like the Posh Reception, but the lion's share of the quests send me into harm's way with no alternative but fisticuffs.

In FO3 the ratio of quests that have you fight stuff to finish the quest is larger. Half of Moira's quests end up to be that (and no better than the Witcher contracts, if not worse - remember the mirelurk quest).

Yeah, I remember the mirelurk quest. She specifically tells you not to engage the mirelurks, and it isn't difficult to comply. At this point, I really don't know what you are talking about. Moira's quests generally don't require killing (if you want), except one that results in killing a few mole rats (unbeknownst to her). And you can bluff your way through that quest. In fact, you can talk Moira out of making the survival guide all together. You are so far off that I doubt you have any genuine impression of either of these games.

Also, I'd like to hear how you snuck by the Mutant Behemoth at GNR.

You don't need to go to GNR at all. How's that for railroading? Seriously though, on my first playthrough I hid and took pot shots while the immortal BoS chipped away. It's nothing close to the Witcher's combat-centric plot and character development.

I don't want to argue that Witcher does not have more or less combat than FO3, but that it, unlike FO3, is not combat-centered. Consider all the random fights in FO3. Also, in Witcher, most rewards come not from killing (especially since you can't loot stuff other than food and alchemic ingredients), unlike in FO3.

I have considered all of the random fights in FO3 (that I can generally avoid with stealth and perception). As far as I can tell, you just don't know the extent to which combat is avoidable in FO3, and you probably don't realize how necessary it is in the Witcher. There's a reason why the Witcher's entire character sheet is devoted to combat.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, most of FO3's character sheet doesn't have any meaning whatsoever, if you will. Additionally, the only thing that determines the character apart from that sheet is the horrible karma system. In Witcher, it is foolish to assume that the skill sheet is the only thing that determines the character (it is called "skill sheet" for a reason - combat skills, you know). Personality is not affected by combat experience, but by decisions made in dialogues (not the least of them, the "Identity" quest) - quite reasonable, you know.

Stealth and perception? Since when did PE affect the gameplay in FO3 in any way? AFAIK your video card determines the drawing distance, and the gun skill are barely affected at all as well.

And seriously, the stealth system is broken. You might have found a way to work it, but it didn't for me. It would give me the message that I am discovered when there's no enemies on the map, or tell me I'm hidden when I'm actually about to be attacked. I had raiders talk as if they sense me even though I was supposed to be completely hidden, etc. With this, I have trouble saying that the stealth system in FO3 serves as an effective way to avoid combat.

Also, it seems like all my efforts trying to say that a game with a lot of combat does not mean it's combat-centric failed to get through. Witcher never centers your attention on "clearing" the map in most cases - the enemies respawn indefinitely in many cases. There is barely any reward trying to kill a lot - you kill only as much as needed to proceed with the story. FO3 encourages you to kill as much as possible - that's the sure-fire way to get good equipment and loot; you may be able to avoid combat in some cases, but more often than not the game does not seem to encourage it. IMHO that is the difference between a combat-centric and a non-combat-centric game.

Finally, if you are forced to fight in the Witcher, the game has reasonable explanations why. FO3 rarely does - the world is divided into friendly and aggressives from the get-go, with little reasoning behind it.

You seem to be missing the point - the avoidability of combat (which is poor in both games) is not the only thing that determines whether the game is combat-centric.

 

[Dionysus]

Well, most of FO3's character sheet doesn't have any meaning whatsoever, if you will.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Stealth and perception? Since when did PE affect the gameplay in FO3 in any way? AFAIK your video card determines the drawing distance, and the gun skill are barely affected at all as well.

Perception allows you to detect hostiles, even if they are obscured by a wall or door. It's very important for the stealth game in FO3. It's actually one of the more well-implemented attributes. It seems that you don't know much about this game. I don't know why you would even continue the discussion after revealing that you don't know anything about sneaking/bluffing through Moira's questline, you don't know what perception does, you don't know how to sneak, and you don't know that parts of the main quest can be completely avoided.

You see, I played the Witcher and I understand it. I've even read walkthroughs to find out about the stuff that I might have missed. You don't know enough about FO3 to have this sort of discussion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly reasonable to say "I don't care about whether combat can be avoided because the game stinks!"

And seriously, the stealth system is broken.

I haven't had those experiences. The stealth is more challenging than the combat, and I suspect that you just aren't any good at it. I'm not trying to be mean when I say that, but it seems to be an accurate assessment based on your statements.

Also, it seems like all my efforts trying to say that a game with a lot of combat does not mean it's combat-centric failed to get through.

It's obviously relative. Neither game is combat-centric relative to Diablo, and both are combat-centric relative to King's Quest. FO3 has noncombat skills, and I can use those skills to solve quests. The Witcher has a completely combat-oriented character sheet and more unavoidable combat in the quests, including multiple boss fights.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, most of FO3's character sheet doesn't have any meaning whatsoever, if you will.

I don't know what you are talking about.[/quote]

There was a video posted a while ago with a character with low SPECIAL attributes and 5% or so in combat skills slaughtering a band of raiders fairly easily on hardest difficulty. Makes me believe stats really matter in FO3. Also, refer to the NMA review about how stats got nerfed.

Perception allows you to detect hostiles, even if they are obscured by a wall or door. It's very important for the stealth game in FO3. It's actually one of the more well-implemented attributes. It seems that you don't know much about this game. I don't know why you would even continue the discussion after revealing that you don't know anything about sneaking/bluffing through Moira's questline, you don't know what perception does, you don't know how to sneak, and you don't know that parts of the main quest can be completely avoided.

I'm pretty sure the hostiles just show up on the compass anyway Although again, the only time I did FO3 was with a relatively high PE stealth character, so I wouldn't know the difference. However, I know that I'm a fan of Thief games and that the FO3 stealth doesn't work right for me. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it doesn't work well enough as it should. In FO1 a character with maxed-out sneak could get by a large group of Super Mutants fairly easily. Also, I know well enough about sneaking and bluffing in FO3, but I'm saying that the game does not reward you for that.

I haven't had those experiences. The stealth is more challenging than the combat, and I suspect that you just aren't any good at it. I'm not trying to be mean when I say that, but it seems to be an accurate assessment based on your statements.

You seem to miss the difference between being able to exploit the system and the system working properly. I have not had the same problems that I have in FO3 in other games that have stealth properly designed. "You only say the stealth doesn't work cuz you suck" I don't take as a valid argument because a character with 100 stealth should have relatively no trouble sneaking by a couple of mirelurks.

It's obviously relative. Neither game is combat-centric relative to Diablo, and both are combat-centric relative to King's Quest. FO3 has noncombat skills, and I can use those skills to solve quests. The Witcher has a completely combat-oriented character sheet and more unavoidable combat in the quests, including multiple boss fights.

Why not compare it to something less extreme? You're intentionally manipulating the examples to get the outcome you want. Compare it to, say Mass Effect or STALKER, and see where that takes you.

And finally. Congratulations on continuously missing the point. It does not matter what you compare it too, but saying that FO3 is less combat-centric and a better RPG when compared to Witcher because you can sneak and have some other outlined non-combat skills while completely ignoring all the non-combat experiences of Witcher is just BS. And if you still don't get it, go to Youtube and search for Witcher and FO3 videos and see how many FO3 videos have non-combat experiences presented (walking around excluded).

 

[Dionysus]

There was a video posted a while ago with a character with low SPECIAL attributes and 5% or so in combat skills slaughtering a band of raiders fairly easily on hardest difficulty. Makes me believe stats really matter in FO3. Also, refer to the NMA review about how stats got nerfed.

Was there a youtube video that showed how you can pick a very hard lock or hack a very hard computer with poor lockpicking or science skills? Was there a youtube video that showed the grand influence of the Witcher's science, lockpicking, sneaking, and speech skills? You might want to play the game instead of watching youtube videos.

I'm pretty sure the hostiles just show up on the compass anyway

The distance is determined by your perception.

Although again, the only time I did FO3 was with a relatively high PE stealth character, so I wouldn't know the difference. However, I know that I'm a fan of Thief games and that the FO3 stealth doesn't work right for me. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it doesn't work well enough as it should. In FO1 a character with maxed-out sneak could get by a large group of Super Mutants fairly easily. Also, I know well enough about sneaking and bluffing in FO3, but I'm saying that the game does not reward you for that.

Well, you are simply wrong. Sneaking is not impossible, and it isn't even difficult. Stealth and speech are definitely rewarded. You can complete many quests with those skills for XP+loot. Again, I don't think you know much about FO3.

You seem to miss the difference between being able to exploit the system and the system working properly.

That's a very interesting statement. Honestly, I think single-player games are just collections of exploits. I'm smarter than the AI in any SP game that I've played, so it is somewhat unfair. However, I don't think that FO3 has a stealth game that is exceptionally exploitable compared to its peers. In fact, it's much tougher than Oblivion or Bloodlines, for example.

And finally. Congratulations on continuously missing the point. It does not matter what you compare it too, but saying that FO3 is less combat-centric and a better RPG when compared to Witcher because you can sneak and have some other outlined non-combat skills while completely ignoring all the non-combat experiences of Witcher is just BS. And if you still don't get it, go to Youtube and search for Witcher and FO3 videos and see how many FO3 videos have non-combat experiences presented (walking around excluded).

Wow! Yet again, I never said that FO3 is a better RPG than the Witcher. It is less combat-centric, and I don't need to go to youtube to figure that out. Here's the reason: I actually played both games. I'm not ignoring the noncombat quests in the Witcher. It just has more forced combat than FO3.

Note: That doesn't mean that you should like FO3 more than the Witcher.

 

[Yazman]

Not one of those new Anchorage screenshots makes me think "Oh, Fallout". It looks ridiculously un-Fallout-ish to me in each and every way.

One can only wonder what Fallout 4 will look like...

Thats because its Fallout history... it's portraying a pivotal event in the history of the setting, a pre-war setting. OF COURSE it doesn't look like F1, 2, or 3. It's not MEANT to because its pre-war!

 

[aenemic]

Not one of those new Anchorage screenshots makes me think "Oh, Fallout". It looks ridiculously un-Fallout-ish to me in each and every way.

One can only wonder what Fallout 4 will look like...

Thats because its Fallout history... it's portraying a pivotal event in the history of the setting, a pre-war setting. OF COURSE it doesn't look like F1, 2, or 3. It's not MEANT to because its pre-war!

yeah but it should still have the retro futuristic 50's vibe, right?

 

[Yazman]

Yes thats true. How do you portray a retro-futuristic, pre-apocalyptic warzone in Fallout?

 

[aenemic]

Yes thats true. How do you portray a retro-futuristic, pre-apocalyptic warzone in Fallout?

just like Fallout but everything intact

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Was there a youtube video that showed how you can pick a very hard lock or hack a very hard computer with poor lockpicking or science skills? Was there a youtube video that showed the grand influence of the Witcher's science, lockpicking, sneaking, and speech skills? You might want to play the game instead of watching youtube videos.

Yet again, you keep to continuously (and perhaps intentionally) missing the point. Just because Witcher has a different system doesn't mean it's more combat obsessed (and I take that expression as an insult to any good RPG). I want to see you bash Planescape: Torment because it did not have the science skill, or Fallout1 because you can't cast spells. Non-combat in Witcher is much better implemented, and combat is quick, fast-paced and largely not as cumbersome as in FO3. I don't really see a point to continue this discussion and further derail the topic anymore.

 

[Tagaziel]

Not one of those new Anchorage screenshots makes me think "Oh, Fallout". It looks ridiculously un-Fallout-ish to me in each and every way.

One can only wonder what Fallout 4 will look like...

Thats because its Fallout history... it's portraying a pivotal event in the history of the setting, a pre-war setting. OF COURSE it doesn't look like F1, 2, or 3. It's not MEANT to because its pre-war!

Your stupidity continues to break records.

Fallout's world is it's PREWAR WORLD nuked out. Therefore, PREWAR world should look like the POSTNUCLEAR WORLD after a few bombs.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I ove this community

 

[Viliny]

Sleek advanced high tech suit, old rusty sword. Surely they should have a fancier sword.

Oddly I'm looking forward to the arctic combat armour more than the stealth suit. I likes me full body covering and balaclavas.

I also noticed that in the first screenshot the weapon looks very worn. Is it "fallout" to treat weapons like shit from day one?