Tactics - The debate Continues

[Lord Elden]

Worked fine in Fallout Tactics

I wasn't being sarcastic. I honestly think the CTB system worked relatively good. Yes, it was fast and hectic, but do you think real combat isn't? Yes, it made aimed shots a pain in the arse, but since you could cripple foes with torso shots (if they survived the first burst that is) I went with Fast Shot anyway. I personally liked it. It was certainly much better than the combat "system" in Arcanum...

I personally really liked Fallout Tactics, it's not as bad as everyone says it is. And the Power Armour looks much better than in the original games (I usually refuse to wear PA except as disguise in FO2 because it looks so ugly ingame)...

 

[Sander]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I honestly think the CTB system worked relatively good. Yes, it was fast and hectic, but do you think real combat isn't?

You think Tactics' combat was realistic in any way?

Yes, it made aimed shots a pain in the arse, but since you could cripple foes with torso shots (if they survived the first burst that is) I went with Fast Shot anyway. I personally liked it. It was certainly much better than the combat "system" in Arcanum...

That's hardly a fair comparison.

I personally really liked Fallout Tactics, it's not as bad as everyone says it is. And the Power Armour looks much better than in the original games (I usually refuse to wear PA except as disguise in FO2 because it looks so ugly ingame)...

It isn't that bad as a game, but as a Fallout game it's pretty piss-poor.

 

[Lord Elden]

You think Tactics' combat was realistic in any way?

More realistic than Fallout's combat, yes. You know, when the bullets start raining most soldiers would kiss the dirt, you can't do that in FO, you can, however do that in FO: Tactics. Realistic realistic, no. I'm not saying it's better than the system in Fallout, but it wasn't as bad as some people see it...

That's hardly a fair comparison.

Maybe not. I did like Arcanum too though even if the combat sucked (both the TB and RT mode, did prefer the RT mode though).

It isn't that bad as a game, but as a Fallout game it's pretty piss-poor.

Well AFAIK it wasn't meant to be a Fallout game, just as a spinoff in the same universe...

Dislike for Fallout's PA is a feature of you, not of Power Armor. I like it's look - it's 50ish and Falloutish.

Yes, of course, it's my "problem" I think it's ugly... I think it was overpowered too btw, it should have had some penalties to AG and/or PE.

On the other hand FT PA isn't - of course it's pimped out and looks "cool", but it doesn't fit the Fallout style nor canon.

Would it be canon if BIS had made it look like it did in FO: Tactics? What if Van Buren had have changes made to some canon material, would it be non-canon?

And just for the record, I think Fallout 1&2 was and still is the best game ever made, that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinions about it and that I must love *every* detail about. It wasn't 100% perfect...

 

[Sander]

More realistic than Fallout's combat, yes. You know, when the bullets start raining most soldiers would kiss the dirt, you can't do that in FO, you can, however do that in FO: Tactics. Realistic realistic, no. I'm not saying it's better than the system in Fallout, but it wasn't as bad as some people see it...

Err...the topic was real-time combat, not being able to go prone or not.

Well AFAIK it wasn't meant to be a Fallout game, just as a spinoff in the same universe...

And at that it fails miserably in mucking up the canon in every way possible.

Yes, of course, it's my "problem" I think it's ugly... I think it was overpowered too btw, it should have had some penalties to AG and/or PE.

It's actually rather amazing that you think it's ugly but still like Fallout's atmosphere. Fallout's atmosphere was built entirely around visuals like that: clunky, old-fashioned tech.

Would it be canon if BIS had made it look like it did in FO: Tactics? What if Van Buren had have changes made to some canon material, would it be non-canon?

Anything in the latter games that conflicts with Fallout 1 can not be considered canon. Fallout Tactics not only conflicted with Fallout 1 on story levels, but also a shitload on stylistic levels.

Also, some parts of Fallout 2 are generally ignored as well. Eg. New Reno and talking Deathclaws.

And just for the record, I think Fallout 1&2 was and still is the best game ever made, that doesn't mean I can't have my own opinions about it and that I must love *every* detail about. It wasn't 100% perfect...

Fallout 1 and 2 are not the same game, nor are they equally canonical.

 

[Lord Elden]

Err...the topic was real-time combat, not being able to go prone or not.

Right, well, ahem, enemies usually don't wait for your turn to shoot in RL...

And at that it fails miserably in mucking up the canon in every way possible.

It was made by a different company, what would you expect? Even FO2 which was made partially by the same people as FO1 was different...

It's actually rather amazing that you think it's ugly but still like Fallout's atmosphere. Fallout's atmosphere was built entirely around visuals like that: clunky, old-fashioned tech.

It's amazing I like the atmosphere in FO games but dislike *one* item...?

Anything in the latter games that conflicts with Fallout 1 can not be considered canon. Fallout Tactics not only conflicted with Fallout 1 on story levels, but also a shitload on stylistic levels.

Yeah, I know, doesn't mean it sucks just because of that... Nor would the opposite be true, if the game would be stylistically the same and not conflict but would for some reasons suck anyway, it wouldn't be good...

Also, some parts of Fallout 2 are generally ignored as well. Eg. New Reno and talking Deathclaws.

Didn't mind New Reno personally. Disliked San Fran instead.

Fallout 1 and 2 are not the same game, nor are they equally canonical.

I know they're not the same game. Story-wise and atmosphere-wise FO1 is superior. There are things in FO2 that are better than in FO1 though.
Who decides what's canonical and what's not? The creators? The fans? Or is it just if it contradicts with the first game it's non-canonical? I don't see how New Reno fits that description directly... Would NPCs that don't constantly shoot you in the back be non-canonical?

 

[Wooz]

Wooz was hit in the brain for 4 hit points.

 

[Sander]

Right, well, ahem, enemies usually don't wait for your turn to shoot in RL...

Enemies don't usually wait until they have enough action points to act either.

It's abstraction. A direct translation of any combat or battle system in real-time is practically impossible.

It was made by a different company, what would you expect? Even FO2 which was made partially by the same people as FO1 was different...

Er...que? This wasn't about who was to blame.
And aside from that, the company was supervised by Interplay and got the Fallout license to make a *Fallout* game, not abuse the setting.

It's amazing I like the atmosphere in FO games but dislike *one* item...?

*sigh*
It's amazing that you fail to see the stylistic basis of Fallout.

Yeah, I know, doesn't mean it sucks just because of that... Nor would the opposite be true, if the game would be stylistically the same and not conflict but would for some reasons suck anyway, it wouldn't be good...

It sucks as a Fallout title because of that, which was exactly my point, not that it was a bad game an sich. Yeesh.

Do you often attempt to create new positions and attribute them to people you are arguing with?

Didn't mind New Reno personally. Disliked San Fran instead.

New Reno conflicts with canon in terrible ways, San Fran as well.

I know they're not the same game. Story-wise and atmosphere-wise FO1 is superior. There are things in FO2 that are better than in FO1 though.
Who decides what's canonical and what's not? The creators? The fans? Or is it just if it contradicts with the first game it's non-canonical?

There you go. It's a neat little thing called 'logic'.

I don't see how New Reno fits that description directly... Would NPCs that don't constantly shoot you in the back be non-canonical?

Don't be ridiculous, that was never intended behaviour (and yes, we know that). New Reno is a huge town in a post-apocalyptic, resource starved wasteland consisting entirely and solely of mafia, drug dealers and hookers. There's no way such a town could exist, it doesn't have any merits at all.
Stylistically it failed entirely, with a 1930s mafioso feel instead of a 50's sci-fi feel.

 

[Sorrow]

Who decides what's canonical and what's not? The creators? The fans? Or is it just if it contradicts with the first game it's non-canonical?

The last one is the most logical and the most obvious answer.

Even FO2 which was made partially by the same people as FO1 was different...

The problem is that main 3 creators of Fallout, which created the Fallout setting and it's stylistics (Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson) left the Black Isle before 1/4 of the game was done. Those who were finishing their job botched it.

Would NPCs that don't constantly shoot you in the back be non-canonical?

Strawman argument - we are talking about the setting not about bugs.

Yeah, I know, doesn't mean it sucks just because of that... Nor would the opposite be true, if the game would be stylistically the same and not conflict but would for some reasons suck anyway, it wouldn't be good...

Strawman argument - we are talking about Fallout Tactics as Fallout Tactics, not Tactics A Generic Post Nuclear Tactical Game.

New Reno is a huge town in a post-apocalyptic, resource starved wasteland consisting entirely and solely of mafia, drug dealers and hookers. There's no way such a town could exist, it doesn't have any merits at all.
Stylistically it failed entirely, with a 1930s mafioso feel instead of a 50's sci-fi feel.

I think that they totaly fucked up New Reno. They borrowed too much "roaring twenties" stylistics instead of thinking how Mafia would look in Fallout universe. Starting with Mobsters and Tommy Guns - why the hell almost every time I see an art with NR gangsters I see a Tommy Gun?
They could create classical gangsters armed with modern weapons (Gansters that would have both traditional looks and modern technology. Retro - Future).

They could create an almost untouched pre-war city (a real city!) that is reigned by mafia families. Instead they decided to create an absurdal ruins with 4 casinos as main buildings.

 

[Lord Elden]

It's abstraction. A direct translation of any combat or battle system in real-time is practically impossible.

TB in Fallout isn't very realistic though, does it take less time to aim and shoot than to reload a weapon?

Er...que? This wasn't about who was to blame.
And aside from that, the company was supervised by Interplay and got the Fallout license to make a *Fallout* game, not abuse the setting.

Interplay approved the game with other words.

*sigh*
It's amazing that you fail to see the stylistic basis of Fallout.

I don't fail to see it at all. I see how Power Armour does fit in. Does that mean I must love how that particular armour looks ingame (it looks much better in the inventory btw)?

Don't be ridiculous, that was never intended behaviour (and yes, we know that).

Perhaps you should look for the word 'joke' in the dictionary...

Stylistically it failed entirely, with a 1930s mafioso feel instead of a 50's sci-fi feel.

While I agree that it didn't fit in with the 50/60's style it didn't feel as distracting as San Fran. It felt fresh to have something a little bit different in the game. My favourite towns stylistically are still Junktown and Hub though.

The problem is that main 3 creators of Fallout, which created the Fallout setting and it's stylistics (Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson) left the Black Isle before 1/4 of the game was done.

I know, that's why I said 'partially'...

Strawman argument - we are talking about Fallout Tactics as Fallout Tactics, not Tactics A Generic Post Nuclear Tactical Game.

Alright, I had the feeling you thought the game was bad because it wasn't canonical with Fallout...

 

[Wooz]

Right, this was a thread about the VB video, not Newbie Awareness Week.

I'm split-moving this.

 

[Sander]

TB in Fallout isn't very realistic though, does it take less time to aim and shoot than to reload a weapon?

Er, no, it doesn't. It takes more time to take proper aim and shoot a moving target.

Interplay approved the game with other words.

Yes, your point being what, exactly?

I don't fail to see it at all. I see how Power Armour does fit in. Does that mean I must love how that particular armour looks ingame (it looks much better in the inventory btw)?

It means that whining about it not being fitting is rather ridiculous. Which is what you *did* do.

Perhaps you should look for the word 'joke' in the dictionary...

Yeah, and perhaps you should look for the word 'argument'.

 

[Lord Elden]

Er, no, it doesn't. It takes more time to take proper aim and shoot a moving target.

Really? Aiming and shooting at close range can be done in a second or two if you're proficient in firearms. Reloading on the other hand takes much more time: out with the old mag, grab new mag from belt, insert new mag, takes at least 3-5 seconds even if you're quick... Yet the AP cost for shooting is much higher than reloading...

Yes, your point being what, exactly?

Apparently they felt it was canonical enough... I'm not saying it doesn't contradict the Fallout games, but I don't dismiss the game due to that reason. I like it, and I don't feel I'm a lesser FO-fan just because of that...

It means that whining about it not being fitting is rather ridiculous. Which is what you *did* do.

Take a second and read what I wrote again. I never said it doesn't fit the setting. I said it's ugly. NOT the same thing by a long shot. It does fit the setting but I don't like how it looks.

 

[Sander]

Really? Aiming and shooting at close range can be done in a second or two if you're proficient in firearms. Reloading on the other hand takes much more time: out with the old mag, grab new mag from belt, insert new mag, takes at least 3-5 seconds even if you're quick... Yet the AP cost for shooting is much higher than reloading...

Abstraction, again. Again: aiming at a *moving target* takes time.

Apparently they felt it was canonical enough... I'm not saying it doesn't contradict the Fallout games, but I don't dismiss the game due to that reason. I like it, and I don't feel I'm a lesser FO-fan just because of that...

Gee, did I say you were?
By the way, Interplay also thought that Fallout: BOS was canonical enough. That doesn't mean it actually *fits* canon.

 

[Wiggum]

Reloading on the other hand takes much more time: out with the old mag, grab new mag from belt, insert new mag, takes at least 3-5 seconds even if you're quick...

Realoading takes 3-5 seconds? Oh really!?
clickety clicky!

 

[Lord Elden]

Abstraction, again. Again: aiming at a *moving target* takes time.

Still less time than reloading... I'm talking about soldiers, anti-terrorist team members, SWAT etc., meaning experts at firearms (which the character should be when he has +100% in his choice of weaponry). At close range aiming and shooting happens very fast, unless there there is danger of friendly fire and/or civilian casualties.

Which reminds me of another thing, in realistic combat, bursts with SMGs, assault rifles etc, are usually short bursts, meaning 3-5 bullets. This is in order to avoid kickback. Fallout had 10 shot bursts for small arms... Actually, I don't care whether or not it's realistic (head shots should be pretty much lethal always), I think it's cool anyway. I don't think it was intended to be realistic.

Gee, did I say you were?

It was just an impression I got due to the Power Armour "debate"...

By the way, Interplay also thought that Fallout: BOS was canonical enough. That doesn't mean it actually *fits* canon.

I don't play console games.

Realoading takes 3-5 seconds? Oh really!?
clickety clicky!

I suspect that guy is one in a billion...

 

[Sander]

Still less time than reloading... I'm talking about soldiers, anti-terrorist team members, SWAT etc., meaning experts at firearms (which the character should be when he has +100% in his choice of weaponry). At close range aiming and shooting happens very fast, unless there there is danger of friendly fire and/or civilian casualties.

Except that having a different amount of action points for short and 'long' range is pretty ridiculous.

Which reminds me of another thing, in realistic combat, bursts with SMGs, assault rifles etc, are usually short bursts, meaning 3-5 bullets. This is in order to avoid kickback. Fallout had 10 shot bursts for small arms... Actually, I don't care whether or not it's realistic (head shots should be pretty much lethal always), I think it's cool anyway. I don't think it was intended to be realistic.

In part, it was. Of course, it's also a question of balance and fun.

 

[octotron]

In my personal opinion, Jagged Alliance 2 is still the gold standard for turn-based combat with modern weapons. Perhaps a bit too much detail for RPG players (sadly), but takes a great deal into account.

One small example is how a character's aim is thrown off after they get hit. If you shoot first but don't drop your opponent, you can still ruin his shot if you get a good hit. I liked the fatigue/injury system too.

 

[Sorrow]

In my personal opinion, Jagged Alliance 2 is still the gold standard for turn-based combat with modern weapons. Perhaps a bit too much detail for RPG players (sadly), but takes a great deal into account.

One small example is how a character's aim is thrown off after they get hit. If you shoot first but don't drop your opponent, you can still ruin his shot if you get a good hit. I liked the fatigue/injury system too.

I second that. That's why I consider FT a double failure - it's not up to standards both in Fallout canon and as a TB tactical game.

 

[Lord Elden]

Except that having a different amount of action points for short and 'long' range is pretty ridiculous.

It would destroy the gameplay. Besides, as I suspect your mentioning of 'long' range was meant to mean, the range in Fallout is shortened down very much anyway. Max range with Sniper Rifle is 50 hexes (meters!?!)... IRL you can shoot and hit people 25-50m away with a normal pistol (although the bullet probably travels ca 300-500m if nothing gets in the way). With a sniper rifle some snipers can hit targets upto +1000m.

In part, it was. Of course, it's also a question of balance and fun.

I wouldn't mind if Fallout had the possibility of using short bursts instead of full automatic fire. Or if the Shotgun had the possibility to use both barrels at the same time (Tactics actually had that).

 

[Sorrow]

I wouldn't mind if Fallout had the possibility of using short bursts instead of full automatic fire.

3 round burst mode was invented after Vietnam war when they finally discovered that spraying is a great way to waste a lot of ammo without hitting the target. Since Fallout's action takes place in alternative universe, I think that spraying is still a valid tactic here - instead of introducing a 3 round burst mode they just moved to weapons that can spray even more (miniguns).