valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Yes, I'm well aware of FO:T.Dukeanumberone said:
I thought you are comparing the combat systems of first Fallout vs. New Vegas though.
Obsidian CEO Talks Working on Fallout Again
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I thought you are comparing the combat systems of first Fallout vs. New Vegas though.
Dukeanumberone
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Crni Vuk
Ok, so were drifting from the tactical part and into generic combat again? You can say whatever you want about the numbers but millions of people (many repeat F3 fans) aren't going to buy a re-skinned game with a new map and new story (oversimplification) if they HATE the combat.
It is not up to par with a strict FPS just as its not up to par in char building with a pure RPG (although FNV feels pretty close).
Its the same purity debate we've already had. Most people are not that strict in terms of their standards. Both FNV and F3 are Hybrids, FNV being a better hybrid but still a hybrid. Everyone who I've talked to IRL who have played the newer fallouts and regularly play FPS don't have a problem with the combat as they understand it is a hybrid and thus consideration is given.
I find it funny that you constantly say that you "wish" Fallout went back to TB/ISO and then also say they should go full-throttle shooter mechanics.
as far as that goes I call BULLSHIT, F3 is pretty close to brainless but not FNV, what difficulty where you playing on?
I am playing on VERY HARD w/HARDCORE enabled and anytime the legion hit squad shows up it becomes an hour long battle that requires weapon switching, vatsing, finding cover, flanking and a minimum several re-loads because they killed me. IF it were a mindless shooting they wouldn't have DT which is a MF with base/ low end guns vs mid grade armor. I would just one hit them with a sniper rifle if it were Battlefield or COD, but its not. Also the whole skills affecting aim is obviously a divergence from a mindless shooter.
I love the Tom Clancy games, been playing them since rainbow six for N64, still one of my fav tac shooters. Still a MF on HARD.
But you can't honestly believe that would make it a better experience, especially if you lack FPS shooter skills, thats prob why I don't hear too many complaints about it bc all the good FPS players I talk to adapt to the game system as long as its not total BS, which fallout isn't. It's not gearz (which I do not like, but is a better FPS) and its def no TC game but I don't want it to be either, thats what those games are for , and maybe thats the point of your whole argument to get people to see your pov about gameplay, but wouldn't it just be easier to just say that flat out?
Ok, so were drifting from the tactical part and into generic combat again? You can say whatever you want about the numbers but millions of people (many repeat F3 fans) aren't going to buy a re-skinned game with a new map and new story (oversimplification) if they HATE the combat.
It is not up to par with a strict FPS just as its not up to par in char building with a pure RPG (although FNV feels pretty close).
Its the same purity debate we've already had. Most people are not that strict in terms of their standards. Both FNV and F3 are Hybrids, FNV being a better hybrid but still a hybrid. Everyone who I've talked to IRL who have played the newer fallouts and regularly play FPS don't have a problem with the combat as they understand it is a hybrid and thus consideration is given.
I find it funny that you constantly say that you "wish" Fallout went back to TB/ISO and then also say they should go full-throttle shooter mechanics.
------------------------------------------------
as far as that goes I call BULLSHIT, F3 is pretty close to brainless but not FNV, what difficulty where you playing on?
I am playing on VERY HARD w/HARDCORE enabled and anytime the legion hit squad shows up it becomes an hour long battle that requires weapon switching, vatsing, finding cover, flanking and a minimum several re-loads because they killed me. IF it were a mindless shooting they wouldn't have DT which is a MF with base/ low end guns vs mid grade armor. I would just one hit them with a sniper rifle if it were Battlefield or COD, but its not. Also the whole skills affecting aim is obviously a divergence from a mindless shooter.
I love the Tom Clancy games, been playing them since rainbow six for N64, still one of my fav tac shooters. Still a MF on HARD.
But you can't honestly believe that would make it a better experience, especially if you lack FPS shooter skills, thats prob why I don't hear too many complaints about it bc all the good FPS players I talk to adapt to the game system as long as its not total BS, which fallout isn't. It's not gearz (which I do not like, but is a better FPS) and its def no TC game but I don't want it to be either, thats what those games are for , and maybe thats the point of your whole argument to get people to see your pov about gameplay, but wouldn't it just be easier to just say that flat out?
Bullshit? Thats how I played F3. Won the game easily.
Thats how I played Vegas. Albeit it was a bit more difficult, because there are simply more enemies that hurt harder and do more damage. But it worked in the end, particularly the further you get in the game the less it is about "tactic" or "thinking" but pointing your gun in the direction where the enemy is. Some creatures and enemies can hurt you a lot, like Cazardores and the like. And that as well only because someone had the idea to give them more then just "damage" but actually something that can really poison you! There should have been A LOT more situations like those. But as said. after I finished around 40% of the game (main story) I was maxed out enough that pretty much everything simply droped dead.
In both cases I got enough stimpacks to literaly swim in them.
Heh, there is even footage of people that play F3 with fists on the hardest difficulty runing straight to supermutants beating the crap out of them with 20 stimpacks in their pocket ...
oh yeah so tactical!
Please. Who do you try to convince here? Your self? Do F3 and Vegas contain "RPG" elements? Sure they do. But they are still 80% brainless shooters from the gameplay.
Thats how I played Vegas. Albeit it was a bit more difficult, because there are simply more enemies that hurt harder and do more damage. But it worked in the end, particularly the further you get in the game the less it is about "tactic" or "thinking" but pointing your gun in the direction where the enemy is. Some creatures and enemies can hurt you a lot, like Cazardores and the like. And that as well only because someone had the idea to give them more then just "damage" but actually something that can really poison you! There should have been A LOT more situations like those. But as said. after I finished around 40% of the game (main story) I was maxed out enough that pretty much everything simply droped dead.
In both cases I got enough stimpacks to literaly swim in them.
Heh, there is even footage of people that play F3 with fists on the hardest difficulty runing straight to supermutants beating the crap out of them with 20 stimpacks in their pocket ...
oh yeah so tactical!
Please. Who do you try to convince here? Your self? Do F3 and Vegas contain "RPG" elements? Sure they do. But they are still 80% brainless shooters from the gameplay.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Stimpaks only let you swim through cazadors without Hardcore mode on.
Not if you pump points into medicine first.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
A crappy combat system doesnt get better if you play it on "hard". It only gets worse with all the hp bloat around, which forces you to waste even more time in this abomination that is the combat gameplay.
Hardcore mode doesn't increase enemy health.
It makes Stimpaks work over time rather than instantly and makes eating food and drinking water an actual mechanic.
It makes Stimpaks work over time rather than instantly and makes eating food and drinking water an actual mechanic.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Shhhhh correcting surf solar is kind of pointless.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Please show me where I have talked about the hardcore mode?
Dukeanumberone
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Surf
Crni
I conceded that part, see--->
--
Trying to have a discussion, but with you that is difficult at best.
At least your down to 80% percent brainless, which equals 20% brainpower? Thus invalidating you prior statement that it is brain-less?
So again I bring up the point of
And I ask what about DT/DR and aim affected by skill is mindless shootery? The fact that it is in first person?
What about healing over-time? Such as stimpacks in HARDCORE mode? You detested the fact of swimming in them yet don't play on hardcore just so you can gripe about it?
-you didn't, but you did comment after walpknot, and didn't reference any particular comment. So to those reading your post it would seem dismissive to the issue brought up about Hardcore mode( not the difficulty setting)
to which you responded (because there is no other implied target in your post)
Crni
I conceded that part, see--->
--
again, you didn't state difficulty nor if hardcore was active, are you avoiding the question?
seems like no hardcore, but I won't assume anything with you, which is why I am asking, plainly, HARDCORE or NOT ?
already conceded, way to avoid any of my questions.
not trying to convince anyone, thats pointless.
Trying to have a discussion, but with you that is difficult at best.
At least your down to 80% percent brainless, which equals 20% brainpower? Thus invalidating you prior statement that it is brain-less?
So again I bring up the point of
And I ask what about DT/DR and aim affected by skill is mindless shootery? The fact that it is in first person?
What about healing over-time? Such as stimpacks in HARDCORE mode? You detested the fact of swimming in them yet don't play on hardcore just so you can gripe about it?
Honestly I cant remember anymore if I played Hardcore or not. Was it that mode where you had to sleep sometimes or face issues? If yes, then its what I played. And only the start of the game was reasonable difficult where I died a few time simply because I could not kill a death claw before it killed me. Once I maxed out the relevant stats, it was again, easy as always. Seriously. Its like you never played shooters before. There are so many skills in this game that work EXACTLY like in F3, which is BUILD up on Oblivions gameplay in a lot of ways.
Hence why Vegas is more a shooter then RPG - as far as the combat goes.
Hence why Vegas is more a shooter then RPG - as far as the combat goes.
Dukeanumberone
It Wandered In From the Wastes
crni
So if i get your argument correctly....
Perfectly logical assumption considering the prior arguments I made concerning Gearz of war, Tom Clancy games, etc.
I can't think of ANY mindless shooters that lvlUP my PC and allow easier combat the more I play.
So if i get your argument correctly....
-IN an RPG shouldn't at least part of the combat depend on the skill level of the relevant stats of the PC?
Perfectly logical assumption considering the prior arguments I made concerning Gearz of war, Tom Clancy games, etc.I can't think of ANY mindless shooters that lvlUP my PC and allow easier combat the more I play.
AND?
yes, just that the issue here is that in my oppinion F3 and Vegas are more an shooter then "RPG" as far as ONLY(!) the gameplay goes. The so called "RPG" mechanics you have here dont matter as much like the "shooter skills" that you learned from the countless other Half Life and Doom clones out there.
See, call me a purrist if you want. That would be probably even right. When you shoot a "gun" in Fallout 1 or 2, there was no "player skill" involved. Its your character that would miss or hit. And no matter HOW good you are in playing shooters, if your character has 0% in small guns, he will not hit anything.
Now, in F3 and Vegas, this obviously doesnt work. I promise you. With enough stimpacks and amunition its just a matter of TIME before you kill things. With a few exceptions here, enemies that run a lot faster then you for example, or enemies that are bloated up so much with health that you can not avoid getting killed really before you have the best of the best equipment. BUT(!) this is neither uncommon in shooters to say that. You get better armor and better weapons over time simply more "power". Doom isnt suddenly an RPG because you get at the end the BFG9000 that kills an cyberdeamon in two shoots instead of 40 from your shoot gun.
Maybe its just my opinion, no clue. But the gameplay of F3 and Vegas feels for me like a totally butchered version of F1 and 2. Because playing it that way simply doesnt work for me because I just expect from guns in third and first person to behave like "guns" would in the real world, not some magic telling me "yeah well the 9mm bullet you just fired will do 50% less damage because you have low small arms skills!". The reason is because you SEE the bullet hit the head of your target. Its unprotected head.
Thats why it doesnt work that well for me. Its the visual presentation which kills any form of interpretation.
For example, playing a game like Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 where the player has failed an "check" for example and has now to deal with the effect of an critical failure, you could always assume or imagine that something like this happend.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XktBT42WVwE[/youtube]
Now in Fallout 3/Vegas, if you have low skills, all that happens is that you can hit targets with a full magazine in their unprotected head and they will not die ... (sadly I dont have that video anymore), which can be even worse if the weapon is in bad conditions.
But I doubt a game would go for visuals in such extremes where every weapon gets animations for "failing" a succesfull attack because your character has not enough skills.
- its not about realism its about believable settings.
See, call me a purrist if you want. That would be probably even right. When you shoot a "gun" in Fallout 1 or 2, there was no "player skill" involved. Its your character that would miss or hit. And no matter HOW good you are in playing shooters, if your character has 0% in small guns, he will not hit anything.
Now, in F3 and Vegas, this obviously doesnt work. I promise you. With enough stimpacks and amunition its just a matter of TIME before you kill things. With a few exceptions here, enemies that run a lot faster then you for example, or enemies that are bloated up so much with health that you can not avoid getting killed really before you have the best of the best equipment. BUT(!) this is neither uncommon in shooters to say that. You get better armor and better weapons over time simply more "power". Doom isnt suddenly an RPG because you get at the end the BFG9000 that kills an cyberdeamon in two shoots instead of 40 from your shoot gun.
Maybe its just my opinion, no clue. But the gameplay of F3 and Vegas feels for me like a totally butchered version of F1 and 2. Because playing it that way simply doesnt work for me because I just expect from guns in third and first person to behave like "guns" would in the real world, not some magic telling me "yeah well the 9mm bullet you just fired will do 50% less damage because you have low small arms skills!". The reason is because you SEE the bullet hit the head of your target. Its unprotected head.
Thats why it doesnt work that well for me. Its the visual presentation which kills any form of interpretation.
For example, playing a game like Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 where the player has failed an "check" for example and has now to deal with the effect of an critical failure, you could always assume or imagine that something like this happend.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XktBT42WVwE[/youtube]
Now in Fallout 3/Vegas, if you have low skills, all that happens is that you can hit targets with a full magazine in their unprotected head and they will not die ... (sadly I dont have that video anymore), which can be even worse if the weapon is in bad conditions.
But I doubt a game would go for visuals in such extremes where every weapon gets animations for "failing" a succesfull attack because your character has not enough skills.
- its not about realism its about believable settings.
Dukeanumberone
It Wandered In From the Wastes
CRNI
in fact you said the same thing yourself..
You say this is your reasoning.>>
make things hard to hit not magically change the damage based on skill(which should reflect your abilities within a certain field)
I agree that in combat they are more shooter than RPG, BUT, and it is a very big BUT, you said it yourself that the fact that
that is exactly how it differs from a mindless shooter, and also like I stated before the fact the weapon condition and maintenance affects your accuracy and damage as well, hell the simple fact that you have to maintain your weapons is key to a lot of RPG's and I haven't seen that in ANY mindless shooter.
in fact you said the same thing yourself..
You say this is your reasoning.>>
That is your expectation of a camera angle not a very good representation of actual game play defects (which I admit there are, I would actually tie the guns skills much closer to accuracy, sway,spread, ect, and leave damage alone). Saying it is a mindless shooter just because of this is disingenuous at the very least.Ok, For example, playing a game like Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 where you see someone wearing leather arm or any other light arm without a helmet and then headshot them with a sniper and do 8 dam? You mean like that, is that what annoys you?
why not? it shouldn't be a failed animation, just a missed shot,
make things hard to hit not magically change the damage based on skill(which should reflect your abilities within a certain field)
I agree with you there, I just think we are arguing different points of the same problem, but I don't overreact and dismiss the entire combat as "mindless shootery" simply because it is flawed.
why not? it shouldn't be a failed animation, just a missed shot,
make things hard to hit not magically change the damage based on skill(which should reflect your abilities within a certain field)
Yes, thats what a game like F3 or Vegas should have done. But they didnt. For obvious reasons. Its easier to just cause "less damage". If it makes sense or not? who cares.
Hence why first person games mixed with shooter mechanics ALWAYS make poor RPG games in my eyes, for the simple fact that that the visual representation here (lets call it that for a lack of better) will always be something you have to deal with.
I think games like Deus Ex did it a lot better, because the effects of augmentations in combat, have not been that huge, giving the game some debth though, but never so much that you forgot it was a "shooter" you played here. The RPG elements in Deus Ex came pretty much only from the dialogues. While F3 has not even that done well. Vegas is better here, but it still donesmt make that shitty F3 gameplay go away they had to use.
You konw, this might be very much my personal preference, no clue. But I think doing RPG and "First person" correctly needs a hell lot of work. A lot more work then most developers, or any developer is willing to take, because suddenly you have to make an VISUAL effect for ALL the possible things that can happen. If you failed some attack, be it with ranged or meele weapons, more animations and so on.
One example that somewhat fitts in here.
When you get in to an very shabby location in F2 or F1, you see an mattres, the game will tell you maybe "you will not spend the night alone sleeping in it", telling you that it is full of lice. No need to make a new "model" of it, just for this one scene. The describtion and top down view alone help you to make an picture in your imagination.
This doesnt work the same way in first person. The interaction between the world and the player is a different one
The power of words has no meaning in a game like F3 where everyone is done with visuals for "inowashun".
make things hard to hit not magically change the damage based on skill(which should reflect your abilities within a certain field)
Yes, thats what a game like F3 or Vegas should have done. But they didnt. For obvious reasons. Its easier to just cause "less damage". If it makes sense or not? who cares.
Hence why first person games mixed with shooter mechanics ALWAYS make poor RPG games in my eyes, for the simple fact that that the visual representation here (lets call it that for a lack of better) will always be something you have to deal with.
I think games like Deus Ex did it a lot better, because the effects of augmentations in combat, have not been that huge, giving the game some debth though, but never so much that you forgot it was a "shooter" you played here. The RPG elements in Deus Ex came pretty much only from the dialogues. While F3 has not even that done well. Vegas is better here, but it still donesmt make that shitty F3 gameplay go away they had to use.
You konw, this might be very much my personal preference, no clue. But I think doing RPG and "First person" correctly needs a hell lot of work. A lot more work then most developers, or any developer is willing to take, because suddenly you have to make an VISUAL effect for ALL the possible things that can happen. If you failed some attack, be it with ranged or meele weapons, more animations and so on.
One example that somewhat fitts in here.
When you get in to an very shabby location in F2 or F1, you see an mattres, the game will tell you maybe "you will not spend the night alone sleeping in it", telling you that it is full of lice. No need to make a new "model" of it, just for this one scene. The describtion and top down view alone help you to make an picture in your imagination.
This doesnt work the same way in first person. The interaction between the world and the player is a different one
The power of words has no meaning in a game like F3 where everyone is done with visuals for "inowashun".