Some tips for people who don't like the Demo Rant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
In CTB, you dont need to click to attack anything at all. With that in mind if say Strom is undersome cover prone in agressive mode when you get him to stand he will attack the 1st thing that he see's and if you've got burst on then he'll be making Brahmin patties. So with the auto shoot in mind dont move your guys 1/2 into a room. Move them just to the 1st square that will give them a clear view of the room. As soon as they get there they'll attack anything they see.

If you dont belive me ive finished both missions with just strom with out clicking on something to attack :)

"T" to target. If you target someone's head with bulleye and leave him with argressive on. He will go for headshots on everything he sees. So keep that in mind.

Use your sneak boys to scout out rooms if they have raiders in them do the above.

So guys, STOP TRYING TO PLAY IT LIKE FALLOUT1/2. Accept that this is a different game and come to term with the differences. You'll enjoy the game far more.

Futhermore, if you hate this game and everyone hates this game and the sales are poor. The Fallout universe will die and you will never EVER see a Fallout3, EVER. FO:T is a game that is trying to built up the fan base a bit for better sales, by trying a differnt genre, for the sake of giving the far off Fallout3 a greater base for sales and thus interplay will be more likly to allow BIS to do it. THIS IS NOT A RPG. Im really disapointed in all of you guys bashing this game. I dont think i should call my self a Fallout-fanboy anymore because its meaning is becoming "whiny bitch boy".

Flame away...

josh
thrawnage@bigpond.com
 
>In CTB, you dont need to
>click to attack anything at
>all.

Real time mode is the main problem with this game. That's one reason a lot of us don't like it in the first place.

>If you dont belive me ive
>finished both missions with just
>strom with out clicking on
>something to attack :)

And you don't see this as a fundamental example of a problem with the game? Amazing.

>So guys, STOP TRYING TO PLAY
>IT LIKE FALLOUT1/2. Accept that
>this is a different game
>and come to term with
>the differences. You'll enjoy the
>game far more.

No, instead, play it like Baldur's Gate, because that's what it really is.

>Futhermore, if you hate this game
>and everyone hates this game
>and the sales are poor.
>The Fallout universe will die
>and you will never EVER
>see a Fallout3, EVER.

I see, so buy a fundamentally flawed game in hopes for future possible fundamentally flawed games?

I seriously doubt they'd scrap one of their best original RPG universes because a spin off flopped.

The only way I'd consider buying this game is if they fix the turn based aspect of the game. Only a good turn based mode will be balanced with the majority of the Fallout attributes. Of course, Charisma got the shaft anyway.

> THIS
>IS NOT A RPG. Im
>really disapointed in all of
>you guys bashing this game.

It's not an RPG, I think everyone knows that. However, it has the name "Fallout" and it has the Fallout character statistics. It should at least be balanced as such. It's not, and real time mode is a huge part of that problem.

>I dont think i should
>call my self a Fallout-fanboy
>anymore because its meaning is
>becoming "whiny bitch boy".

How about "Moronic, Attention Deficit Disorder Monkey" for you people who just say, "Use CTB! It r00lz!"

>Flame away...

I just did.
 
FOT doesnt play like BG, its like me saying Fallout is a cheap copy of FF or nintendo's Dragon warrior(first rpg for me) so if you say FOT is like Bg then Fallout 1/2 is like playing FF(Final Fantasy).
 
Wait until they add the pausing.. Then tell me it's not identical to Baldur's Gate. The only difference is clicking on binder tabs instead of Character Portraits.
 
>In CTB, you dont need to
>click to attack anything at
>all. With that in mind
>if say Strom is undersome
>cover prone in agressive mode
>when you get him to
>stand he will attack the
>1st thing that he see's
>and if you've got burst
>on then he'll be making
>Brahmin patties. So with the
>auto shoot in mind dont
>move your guys 1/2 into
>a room. Move them just
>to the 1st square that
>will give them a clear
>view of the room. As
>soon as they get there
>they'll attack anything they see.

That's not tactics.
That's cheese. I can just see multiplayer now, people shooting from two doors on opposite sides of the room, nevermind cover and the like.

>
>If you dont belive me ive
>finished both missions with just
>strom with out clicking on
>something to attack :)

Wow...bit challenge there, huh? Where's the 'tactics' fit in?

Even in CTB the AI was nonexistent, where you could fire a gun near where the enemy was, and most likely they would come running. If they didn't see anyone, they would just stand there picking their nose.

>"T" to target. If you target
>someone's head with bulleye and
>leave him with argressive on.
>He will go for headshots
>on everything he sees. So
>keep that in mind.

Moot point.

>Use your sneak boys to scout
>out rooms if they have
>raiders in them do the
>above.

Another moot point.

>So guys, STOP TRYING TO PLAY
>IT LIKE FALLOUT1/2. Accept that
>this is a different game
>and come to term with
>the differences. You'll enjoy the
>game far more.

I tried to play it as a tactical game, and wasn't too impressed.


>Futhermore, if you hate this game
>and everyone hates this game
>and the sales are poor.
>The Fallout universe will die
>and you will never EVER
>see a Fallout3, EVER.

Are you just talking out of your ass here? Chris Taylor has REPEATEDLY said that the sales of Tactics would have no effect upon Fallout 3, and the Fallout 3 RPG franchise has been deemed by Interplay to be too valuable to not pay attention to. So please don't try to use that as ammunition, it doesn't fly.

>FO:T
>is a game that is
>trying to built up the
>fan base a bit for
>better sales, by trying a
>differnt genre, for the sake
>of giving the far off
>Fallout3 a greater base for
>sales and thus interplay will
>be more likly to allow
>BIS to do it.

Aside from another false point about Interplay and BIS, I'll counter another obvious point.

Just like with Ultima and Ultima Online. What draws people into UO (online play) doesn't mean that they will like the prior games (which featured RPG play). Those that went and tried to play the Ultima series after playing UO didn't really like it because it wasn't what drew them to UO.

So now this is catering almost exclusively to the 'kill-'em' crowd, I doubt they would want to go through an RPG. Case in point: Baldur's Gate people disliking Planescape: Torment because "it was too wordy".

So if it's strategic and squad-based play that is the selling point of Tactics, I doubt that a majority would have an interest in the RPG Fallout games, where combat is not the focus through the entire game.

>THIS
>IS NOT A RPG. Im
>really disapointed in all of
>you guys bashing this game.

Sorry, Mommy, we'll accept anything next time.
I'm just dissapointed that you can't accept a differing opinion or three.

>I dont think i should
>call my self a Fallout-fanboy
>anymore because its meaning is
>becoming "whiny bitch boy".
>
>Flame away...

Hmmm, would that be a troll?
 
Point taken

U guys are crude to bully a 120meg demo. Point taken.... It proves that this game will not be attracting fallout fans like u but it will attract casual gamers... May I correct, do correct me if I am wrong.
 
Indeed you are wrong:

I played it with nothing but expectation of a tactics game in mind and the Fallout world. One I saw a bit of, the other seemed to be lacking.

Guess which?

The tactics part is fine for the most part, but in the first mission I noticed a terrible lack of tactics that needed to be used at all. Only one way of approach (linear), and it's also rather too cheesed as to how it plays. The AI needs definite tweaking, as does the CTB/TB system. They play completely different.

I'm really neither for or against the game, I'm just hoping they do continue to do refinements upon it. AI in particular.

I'm what's known as a 'renaissance gamer'. I play most genres (save for sports, and then I do enjoy a few titles such as Mutant League Football and Bloodbowl - something other than mainstream sports). I also enjoy most genres. I've also had experience in the game-creation field with playerbases of around 300-500 people. Though I appreciate what goes into games, and I've been around for quite some time in the gaming scene.

As far as multiple instances of cross-genre movement, there's been more horror stories than good ones. Personally, I'd like to see Fallout Tactics do well, and it's perhaps good there's a devil's advocate or three around to raise suspicions and such - because of the prior industry failures. That's ALL I'd like to see deviated from the formula of Fallout. Fallout was created for a purpose - not to become everyone's favorite red-headed bastard-child like some series have become.
 
RE: Indeed you are wrong:

>I'm really neither for or against
>the game, I'm just hoping
>they do continue to do
>refinements upon it. AI
>in particular.

I really wish the enemy AI were a lot more like Fallout's enemy AI. When I pop a raider in a camp full of raiders, I expect the majority of raiders to come pouring out after me.

As far as tactical battles go, Fallout 2 and Navarro rate right up there with the best of them. There's nothing like clearing Navarro in *any* game.

As soon as you fire on one of the Enclave guards in Navarro, enemies flood out of everywhere. If you're not careful, you get overwhelmed several turns in to it. Even if you're super beefy, you have to be careful.

Or gunning down the President in the oil rig, guards stream in from their quarters and posts.

>As far as multiple instances of
>cross-genre movement, there's been more
>horror stories than good ones.
> Personally, I'd like to
>see Fallout Tactics do well,
>and it's perhaps good there's
>a devil's advocate or three
>around to raise suspicions and
>such - because of the
>prior industry failures. That's
>ALL I'd like to see
>deviated from the formula of
>Fallout. Fallout was created
>for a purpose - not
>to become everyone's favorite red-headed
>bastard-child like some series have
>become.

I really, really think Interplay should have made arrangements with Tim Cain to consult with FOT. He's the guy who set up the balance of Fallout originally.

Fallout had a real elegance about it in terms of how everything worked out so nicely. Everything was governed by how you wanted to play it. There really weren't useless attributes in Fallout. From what I've seen of FOT, it seems there's two useless ones - Charisma and Agility(in real time mode).

Of course, Archanum will have a real time mode also, so we'll see if he can pull off that leap as well.
 
RE: Indeed I am wrong:

True, we all want the fallout series to do well.
 
RE: Indeed I am wrong:

Unless Archanum takes off and FOT buries the series..

Then might I suggest renaming the site to "No Female Dwarves Allowed". ;)
 
Why

Why would anyone want to rename it to "No Female Dwarves Allowed"? FOT wont bury the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top