Hey everybody! It's target practice!
Lamest Fallout 3 Ideas Ever:
- Thread starter Roshambo
- Start date
I Must Be Crazy 2
First time out of the vault
Lame suggestion
Here's a lame suggestion (applicable to Fallout 1,2, or 3) that I remember from the old Interplay Fallout message boards [sic]:
The addition of a new perk:
Sure-Handed
Levels: 3
This perk will add 2% to the maximum to-hit percentage during combat. With one level of this perk, you can have a maximum of 97% chance to hit. With three levels of this perk, every attack will be a guaranteed hit if your skill is high enough.
Here's a lame suggestion (applicable to Fallout 1,2, or 3) that I remember from the old Interplay Fallout message boards [sic]:
The addition of a new perk:
Sure-Handed
Levels: 3
This perk will add 2% to the maximum to-hit percentage during combat. With one level of this perk, you can have a maximum of 97% chance to hit. With three levels of this perk, every attack will be a guaranteed hit if your skill is high enough.
Rickhardslab
First time out of the vault
Coming to theaters this Summer, from Bethsoft Entertainment.... Its the Bl0ckBus7er hit FALLOUT 3, TEH MOVIE!!! Starring Kevin K0stner as the enigmatic "Vault Dweller", Hayley Joel Osmond as loyal "Dogmeat" and Gene Hackman as the icy "Overseer".
" OMFG it was TEH B3ST, L33T3ST MOVEE EVER." - Fallout Fan
Rated G
" OMFG it was TEH B3ST, L33T3ST MOVEE EVER." - Fallout Fan
Rated G
Team mates. It blowed in previous games and I don't see any reasons to keep it. Let's just say I always got divorced the "unconventional" way.
They just die, if they don't die, they'll get in the way. And they bored me, never said anything of importance. You can keep the team-mate system in the next game if a) you can actually teach them things and b) you can control the bubble-heads, in battle. And make it so that they can have discussions.
They just die, if they don't die, they'll get in the way. And they bored me, never said anything of importance. You can keep the team-mate system in the next game if a) you can actually teach them things and b) you can control the bubble-heads, in battle. And make it so that they can have discussions.
OH NOES, I HAVE CHOSEN TEH LOSING SIDE OF THE ARGUAMANT!!"11 Whatever, I'm bored. 
Place your bets, Rosh vs 1-post n00b (GTFO)
Basically all you could use them for was pack-asses. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but still. If not for anything else, at least for the holy sake of fun. _I_ didn't enjoy having the NPCs in the team, it didn't make the battles more interesting and as far as I can remember they wouldn't interact with other people. However there's a big chance I got that wrong, never played with team-mates.
I'd much rather control my Non-playable characters in battle. The battle universe and the other universe are two different things, it wouldn't hurt the RPing. If you compare Fallout's battles (turn-based, whatever) to chess (NOES DON'T FLAME ME) you'd much rather have full control instead of just controlling one chessman. If F3 allowed it you could have really advanced strategies and it would certainly require more thinking if you had to control all characters. And, last but not least, I think it would be more teH funie.
The discussions-thing I just threw in, it's complete bullshit, I know. Haven't played KotOR 2, any fun?
Place your bets, Rosh vs 1-post n00b (GTFO)
Basically all you could use them for was pack-asses. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but still. If not for anything else, at least for the holy sake of fun. _I_ didn't enjoy having the NPCs in the team, it didn't make the battles more interesting and as far as I can remember they wouldn't interact with other people. However there's a big chance I got that wrong, never played with team-mates.
I'd much rather control my Non-playable characters in battle. The battle universe and the other universe are two different things, it wouldn't hurt the RPing. If you compare Fallout's battles (turn-based, whatever) to chess (NOES DON'T FLAME ME) you'd much rather have full control instead of just controlling one chessman. If F3 allowed it you could have really advanced strategies and it would certainly require more thinking if you had to control all characters. And, last but not least, I think it would be more teH funie.
The discussions-thing I just threw in, it's complete bullshit, I know. Haven't played KotOR 2, any fun?
Role-Player
A Smooth-Skin
I think the whole problem with the turnbased model in Fallout was that it only applied, controlwise, to a single character. It was soul numbing because players had to sit back and watch party NPCs slug trough it without any kind of player input. In a game like Temple of Elemental Evil, it becomes much more attractive and interactive to issue orders to a group which you have full control over; you can analyze the battlefield and devise tactics that take NPC skills into consideration. The single recurring tactic I used in Fallout was positioning myself so party members did not shoot me in the back. That and aiming for enemy critical points.
The system worked as a means to an end, but that's pretty much all I can say positively about it. Well, that and that it was turnbased which admitedly I enjoy a lot. The ToEE model was vastly superior for a number of reasons and ideally that would be where I would like to see Fallout's combat model go, with perhaps only a small number of improvements.
Alternatively, if the control scheme for Fallout would be subject to a degree of party control then I think it should be made on the fly. Assigning parameters before combat is more of a guessing game because pretty much every battle could be different than the next; whereas issuing orders during combat would possibly provide better results. In a way similar to what Arcanum allowed for, but more detailed and intuitive.
Of course, NPC control doesn't need to be full; partial control could aleviate the problems of erratic AI decisions but still provide a sense of identity to NPCs. One of the things I always found contrived in Bioware games was how NPCs had a very clear, defined personality but in combat they just became mindless, ie, Paladins being against the slaughter of innocents but not minding killing them if I tell them to. Perhaps devising AI routines that dealt with these situations better would be a good step forward.
The system worked as a means to an end, but that's pretty much all I can say positively about it. Well, that and that it was turnbased which admitedly I enjoy a lot. The ToEE model was vastly superior for a number of reasons and ideally that would be where I would like to see Fallout's combat model go, with perhaps only a small number of improvements.
Alternatively, if the control scheme for Fallout would be subject to a degree of party control then I think it should be made on the fly. Assigning parameters before combat is more of a guessing game because pretty much every battle could be different than the next; whereas issuing orders during combat would possibly provide better results. In a way similar to what Arcanum allowed for, but more detailed and intuitive.
Of course, NPC control doesn't need to be full; partial control could aleviate the problems of erratic AI decisions but still provide a sense of identity to NPCs. One of the things I always found contrived in Bioware games was how NPCs had a very clear, defined personality but in combat they just became mindless, ie, Paladins being against the slaughter of innocents but not minding killing them if I tell them to. Perhaps devising AI routines that dealt with these situations better would be a good step forward.
He who doesn't understand what Roleplaying is said:
You seem to preach that your opinion is the only one of any import, that because you don't like NPC's, they should be cut out of the game. You also contradict yourself, by saying you'd like to play as a Non Playable Character. If a character could be played, they would no longer be Non-Playable. In the wastes you wouldn't have time to plan advanced strategies, e.g the first time you play Fo1, and you get ambushed in the Hub, you wouldn't be able to form a strategy.
Advanced NPC AI, sure, control every niggling detail, no thank you.
That's what FOT was for.
Party NPCs in KotOR 2 (and in KotOR, and in Baldur's Gate 2, and in NWN...) were mostly abusive, obnoxious, whiny pussies with extreme cases of bipolar disorder. It was especially bad in BG2, where I often wondered why developers didn't remember to include a Psychology feat, or at least Prozac as a findable item.Roshambo said:
However, that doesn't mean NPCs shouldn't have enough personality to interact with each other. I think PS:T handled this issue well - NPC conversations were short and unobtrusive, yet frequent enough to create the impression they developed relationships with each other, no matter how basic. Most importantly, they didn't come crying into your arms after every minor argument and bother you to no end with their irrelevant emotional issues.
With some good writing, this could work out in Fallout.
RPGenius said:
Yea, I think they should be scratched. If the game was made for ME. If I was in developers team I'd be running polls and trying different options but if the game was made for me I'd scratch them. Do I have to write that all opinions are of equal values and that since I'm merely just a fan it doesn't matter at all what I write or say?
I do know what NPCs are, do I have to change name to PCs? Does it matter what I call them, the thing is, I want to control them in combat. Hereafter I'll call them NPCTBPITAIYT. Non-playable characters that becomes playable if they are in your team. If you recruit NPCTBPITAIYTs I'd like to control the NPCTBPITAIYTs in combat.
I liked FOT for what it was. It's not like I'm telling you that my way is the only way, all I'm saying is that I'd rather have NPCTBPITAIYTs.
Jahakob said:
Which is essentially what they were, compared to the Chosen One or Vault Dweller.
You first say that you didn't like them, then you didn't play with them, then you don't even seem to know what they are.
Non-PLAYER Character. Which has a fairly definite meaning.
Thanks for trying to fake it, though.
"A non-player character (NPC) is a character in a role-playing game whose actions are determined by the gamemaster.
...
The term non-player character is also used in computer role-playing games to describe entities not under the direct control of players. Nearly always the connotation is that an NPC is allied with, or at least neutral toward, the player, rather than being an enemy. Other times the term NPC is used to denote a game character with relatively sophisticated AI code, no matter whether he or she is friendly or not."
YOU deciding combat actions is NOT role-playing, as the character has their own intents and decisions on whom to fight. They might not even fight someone you want them to, because they are (DUH), not you.
YOU are the Vault Dweller, YOU are the Chosen One, YOU are NOT anyone else.
This brings back the point that Saint Proverbius and I would use about the Inbred Engine games. You can have an "NPC" attack someone and kill them, then the NPC will bitch and possibly attack you.
No fucking sense whatsoever.
Yes, but if you're ROLE-PLAYING a character, you do NOT have bodily control of them at all. In D&D, this was handled by the GM deciding what NPCs do.
As does just about every fucking CRPG out there with any sense of role-playing behind it.
Like your argument. Absolute shit.
Then that would make you either Chuck Cuevas or Tony Oakden.
(That isn't a good thing.)
Which would make you an idiot, as that isn't any way to design. Well, that's how SeanyD designs for his "like Diablo FFVII Fallout BG IWD Classic RPG", and that's laughable as it is clear he has no clue of the meaning of RPG.
Well, we could go by RPG design and Fallout's design, as detailed by the history, the evident design, and the words of the original designers themselves - or we could try and put that onto the same level as some random clueless twit's "opinion".
Sorry, YOU have the opinion here. We have the FACTS. We have also heard some unbelievably idiotic garbage over the years, giving reason as to why FPS Fallout and FOOL arguments are not entertained here. It might be for the simple FACT that those aren't CRPGs, and thusly are in no means part of the core RPG. Just like the other two spin-offs.
Of course, then we could also make a poll about what people liked about Fallout...but it's mirroring well in the Fo3 poll on the front page, as I have known for years. While the clueless idiots, (Insert Company Name) ass-suckers, and GameSpy morons have dribbled their way onto this forum, the core of the Fallout audience are those that enjoy the original games, simply put. From developer to fan, and fans who are also developers
, all of these people take notice and can essentially kill off a release if it doesn't meet their satisfactions. It *almost* happened for Fallout 2, despite how people later loved it. Within a week of FOT being released, the sales looked like Herve's personal income over the last year. With FOS, the game didn't even stand a chance, and was publicly ridiculed by other developers on usenet and online in IRC channels.Word of mouth does have an impact in this industry, especially with a game series as established and abused as Fallout. Fallout is still around while many others have since fallen to the wayside, and that speaks a lot for how much interest there really is in the industry about it. It's much like X-COM, each with their own devoted audience who enjoys the games for their great gameplay, their great design, and bemoan how their beloved title has been cheaply whored out for some designer's brain fart (which often includes listening to clueless fans on message boards, believe it or not, and on the same note about credibility and integrity, you can KISS MY ASS for prompting MicroForté into making FOT a better game than what it was originally designed to be), some marketing idiot's demographics scale, or because someone has an opinion that doesn't quite meet up with what the fans in general expect from a sequel.
So, in short, if you're going to try and tell people this crap, after years of knowing the design of this game, you might want to come up with some other reason than you're a selfish shit that can only think of themself instead of the others who enjoy the title. Really, you can't even thoroughly explain yourself about this idea of yours, and expect us to be accomodating, because it's your selfish opinion.
We have a word for that on usenet. It's called TROLL.
Then it isn't a RPG. Starting to put the concepts of RPG design yet, or do we have to wait until the next chapter where you discover OOC and IC mechanics?
That's nice. Then go play a STRATEGY game, when an RPG has you control one person. Perhaps another of note, but only if they aren't people you pick up from a wasteland town as a drifter.
Then either learn what a CRPG is or go back to BioWare's mangled definition steeped in munchkinry. We're talking about an RPG in P&P terms, because guess what genyoius?! Fallout was designed as a P&P RPG. I also have pointed out at length on this forum the state of the industry when Fallout was designed and released, and why it was a welcome breath back to the old school after 3-4 years of only a couple of other decent games being released. Most others had crackheaded combat and design, including Diablo, which came out a year before Fallout.
So to argue differently, you might want to offer more proof than "I want it!"
Role-Player said:
No, it is even more flawed, as I have detailed above.
Then if you LIMIT what an NPC would decide, then you're not that far from having them make their own decisions, AI-wise, and while Fallout's combat system could use some work from a TB perspective (JA2's would work well if you only controlled one character at a time), it doesn't need to be uselessly compromised as some kind of "improvement". Some NPCs were meant to suck, like Ian. He wasn't that great of a shot; Sulik sucks with an SMG but loves seeing the pretty lights, Myron has KILLED HIMSELF with a gun in my presence, and if you're going to put a minigun into Marcus' hands, you BOTH are nucking futz.
None of the NPCs are spectacular except for Tycho and Katja, plus a couple from Fo2. Better AI would help, which TB again aids with in calculations, and with a competent team to code in a good algorithm would be able to achieve a pretty evil AI scheme. I honestly wouldn't trust many "AI programmers" at many corporate development houses to be able to utilize heuristics to the point of looking forward past two moves in a chess AI algorithm.
There are ways of improving TB combat, and Fallout's combat, that shooting it in the head with compromized design just doesn't answer. Not with <s>RT</s> CTB, not with console trash gameplay.
Characters in combat need to be expressed in the same way that they are out of combat, or there is no consistancy to their character design. Which is a GOOD thing if you want them to resemble something other than packmules.
Hotel California
Mildly Dipped
Sorry to side track but how is Katja possibly useful. She can't throw grenades (only good throwing weapon) and turns up so late in the game her knives do almost no damage to muties or robots. Does she have an insanly high critical bonus that i've missed? What gives?
Hotel California said:
Try taking away the throwing knives and giving her a ripper.
I've played several P&P-games and in some of them I got the opportunity to play as other characters. Isn't it still RPing?
Let's just say I'd gladly sacrifice the incredible amount of RPing in combat for more engaging, tactical and fun battles. In this case I think more is less. Even IF they acted their characters in battle I would get tired of them running away/using up all their stim packs/getting in the way/getting killed. But in the end it all comes down to games sold, Beth will include stupid team mates (in Oblivion they basicly kamikazed all the time) and everyone will rejoice because who doesn't like team mates? If Beth includes team-mates it won't be good. I enjoyed doing the wasteland alone. Simply put, FOT-battle > FO1 & FO2-battle.
Let's just say I'd gladly sacrifice the incredible amount of RPing in combat for more engaging, tactical and fun battles. In this case I think more is less. Even IF they acted their characters in battle I would get tired of them running away/using up all their stim packs/getting in the way/getting killed. But in the end it all comes down to games sold, Beth will include stupid team mates (in Oblivion they basicly kamikazed all the time) and everyone will rejoice because who doesn't like team mates? If Beth includes team-mates it won't be good. I enjoyed doing the wasteland alone. Simply put, FOT-battle > FO1 & FO2-battle.
Jahakob said:
Then either you had a GM that didn't have to enforce upon decisions that ran contrary to the character's design (as Arcanum does, try it sometime and not in RT mode), or the character design really didn't involve anything other than another axe in the fray.
Given your ignorance, I'm thinking the whole mess was a munchkinfest, and there's jack shit for "role-playing" in that. Then what you played was a dungeon crawler, and not an RPG. You really only know what the protagonist knows in Fallout.
There are P&P games in which players will take control of NPCs, but only in lieu of when their own character is taken out of the story for a bit, and then they are still ruled by the GM guiding their actions to be within the character. It is mainly a work-saving device for more complex stories, and keeps the players involved throughout the story in keeping them involved but in a lesser role as they only make minor decisions about what to do in combat/town/etc, but really has no bearing upon this discussion except for a really pitiful straw man attempt to excuse why you want crappy FOT combat in Fallout, when Fallout could use some improvements but not a total fuck-over like FOT's combat required. Simply because you can't think of any better TB combat, probably seem to think that Ian is supposed to be any good, that you personally don't like the system because you couldn't see a use for them though you admitted later to not using them so you couldn't tell, and then basically use an occasional storytelling device as a reason why there should be total "squad control". That worked for SOLDIERS in FOT, who are trained to work as a unit under a command, but in the wasreland you are a drifter with people tagging along with you.
Aside from adding to the list, you haven't added anything else relevant to this topic, at least not any willingness to look at Fallout's design, instead you look to using straw man arguments that not only don't even help your argument, but they also really don't bother to address the issues of squad-based combat and conflicting NPC decisions about what you do or have them do. In derailing the Lamest Fallout 3 Ideas thread, you whine about the combat and how the NPCs aren't the competent little soldiers you want them to be, and instead end up adding to the list.
*applauds*
Kharn said:
I couldn't have said it better. The Ripper was designed with her in mind, I often think. Also, she manages to miss Tycho when using an SMG, though she often peppers Dogmeat when he moves right ahead of her, which is something that could be worked on but not requiring the total skullfuck of the NPCs. Which seems to have been partially fixed with Cassidy and the combat shotgun bursts. He seemed a bit more capable about watching his fire with the selectable conditional AI upgrades for Fallout 2.
I know I'll be crushed because of this, but...
I'm a huge fan of fallout, but not of the game itself, but of the universe, atmosphere, etc. That's why I don't really disagree with changing the game basic characteristics, like for example, the isometric view. TES model is... kind of good, since they make a good ranged combat and use the SPECIAL attributes, with the same system of the classic fallout.
The third-first person perspective is good because really puts you inside the game, and I'm saying this because once I was playing BF and driving an old pick up in the desert, and this really was very fallouty for me. But is really the only thing that can be used in the TES style.
I'm a huge fan of fallout, but not of the game itself, but of the universe, atmosphere, etc. That's why I don't really disagree with changing the game basic characteristics, like for example, the isometric view. TES model is... kind of good, since they make a good ranged combat and use the SPECIAL attributes, with the same system of the classic fallout.
The third-first person perspective is good because really puts you inside the game, and I'm saying this because once I was playing BF and driving an old pick up in the desert, and this really was very fallouty for me. But is really the only thing that can be used in the TES style.