The Forests in Oblivion, The Wastes in Fallout

Roshambo said:
album_pic.php
Click to expand...

Boo yah

You know at least you have to give Romero credit. At his peak he was racing Ferraris, renting out high-rise penthouses and dating Playboy Playmates. WTF is Ted Howard doing?

Suck it Down
(at $2 per add-on)
 
Problem with Romero is he was rich after Doom & Doom2, he wants to make a bigger, better game (a.k.a Daikatana) while his parther JC wants to keep the team small. After that we all know what happen...

So there's a reason why hardcore Fallout fan will angry and curse Bethesda. While they can release the game to appeal mass market by
dumbing down the gameplay, they will screwed-up the name of Fallout game for what it intends to be (a pen-and-paper CRPG. Not ARPG <--- action RPG). And Oblivion is technically, an ARPG, which sucks.
 
I cant belive noone's mentioned the most obvious reason of all of why 'exploring teh map!!!onesonesones1111' is WRONG for a FO game (note I said a FO game, not beth FO3, as its still up in the air as too weather or not they wind up as the same thing)

its so obvious I can easily belive that bethesda fanbois cant see it.

its so simple Ill spell it out.

Fallout. Takes. Place. In. A. Wasteland.

what does that mean (intended for the beth fanbois)

thats simple, it means there isnt much left alive and un looted.

as in there would be very little to see on such a map, other than endless wasteland.

Remember on FO/FO2 (once again, something beth fanbois might not know about) inthe worldmap how you travel for days without encountering anything at times ?

That means you'd have to travel IN REAL TIME that that entire distance on your own. (unless beth decides to simply 'bring life anew' to the wasteland, which would make it not FO, as only the arroyo tribe / V13 city from the end of FO2 (and Vault City based off of the endgame where it still exists) would be anything close to 'life anew' (and only cause they had a G.E.C.K. .

on a sad note, I can see Pete Hines now.....

"Fallout will be the BEST EVEAH! We made a wasteland landscape for the world, based off of when you fought creatures in the Fallout Craptics! The majority of the map will be flat desert with a few dunes, some large areas will be ruined dead city's that you can explore, though most are just that, dead!

yeah.... I dont know bout y'all but Im scared for an old freind named fallout, and his future.
 
Of course, they could always make the world smaller than it actually is. I'd rather travel across the barren wasteland, even if it's size would have to be scaled, than use a fast travel method.
 
Lumpy said:
Of course, they could always make the world smaller than it actually is. I'd rather travel across the barren wasteland, even if it's size would have to be scaled, than use a fast travel method.
Click to expand...
Fast travel would be rather horrible, but I don't see any problems with the way it was handled in Fallout 1 and 2, where travel across the world map was seperate from travelling in towns, yet it was still actual travelling as opposed to just jumping somewhere.
I'd say that Arcanum had a pretty good system since it allows you to choose, although I doubt anyone actually used the option of manually walking...anywhere.

Also, Psychosniper, don't be ridiculous, that's not anywhere near what he said.
 
Sander said:
Lumpy said:
Of course, they could always make the world smaller than it actually is. I'd rather travel across the barren wasteland, even if it's size would have to be scaled, than use a fast travel method.
Click to expand...
Fast travel would be rather horrible, but I don't see any problems with the way it was handled in Fallout 1 and 2, where travel across the world map was seperate from travelling in towns, yet it was still actual travelling as opposed to just jumping somewhere.
I'd say that Arcanum had a pretty good system since it allows you to choose, although I doubt anyone actually used the option of manually walking...anywhere.

Also, Psychosniper, don't be ridiculous, that's not anywhere near what he said.
Click to expand...
By fast travel, I meant any sort of travel through the map, as opposed to real time travel.
I think actually going through the wasteland would be interesting, even if it's completly barren, with the occasional radscorpion (or preferrably, without the occasional radscorpion). Sure, one might say that scaling the world size down makes it less realistic, but on the other hand, in most RPGs, including Fallout 1 and 2, everything is scaled down. From size of towns, to speed of character progression, to the passing of time. So scaling the wilderness down as well shouldn't be so bad, especially if it improves the game.
It should also include Map-travel Fallout style, if walking on barren land gets boring after a while.
 
Lumpy said:
By fast travel, I meant any sort of travel through the map, as opposed to real time travel.
I think actually going through the wasteland would be interesting, even if it's completly barren, with the occasional radscorpion (or preferrably, without the occasional radscorpion). Sure, one might say that scaling the world size down makes it less realistic, but on the other hand, in most RPGs, including Fallout 1 and 2, everything is scaled down. From size of towns, to speed of character progression, to the passing of time. So scaling the wilderness down as well shouldn't be so bad, especially if it improves the game.
It should also include Map-travel Fallout style, if walking on barren land gets boring after a while.
Click to expand...
What do you mean if? It's a wasteland. It's boring. It's what wastelands are. Making a wasteland populated would make it feel like something other than a wasteland.
Part of the charm of a post-apocalyptic wasteland is the ruins, though, so I wouldn't mind seeing more of those. But populating it with creatures to make a walk defined as boring that is also supposed to be boring exciting, is pretty silly. Especially when you consider the utter bore that set in when you had to cross the mountains in Oblivion.
 
Sander said:
What do you mean if? It's a wasteland. It's boring. It's what wastelands are. Making a wasteland populated would make it feel like something other than a wasteland.
Part of the charm of a post-apocalyptic wasteland is the ruins, though, so I wouldn't mind seeing more of those. But populating it with creatures to make a walk defined as boring that is also supposed to be boring exciting, is pretty silly. Especially when you consider the utter bore that set in when you had to cross the mountains in Oblivion.
Click to expand...
I've never considered combat fun, so in my opinion, adding creatures to a boring walk turns it into a boring walk full of chores.
One thing Oblivion did right was adding horses as a means of transportations. This allowed you to enjoy the scenery without being bored by a too long walk. Of course, Fallout can't really have any easily available means of transportation. That's why it should still have map travel.
But you should also be able to travel by yourself. And you can make travel interesting without any combat. Just put relics of the old civilization everywhere. Ruined highways and streetsigns. Ruined cities, as seen in Fallout 1. Broken cars. Maybe remains of massacred ghouls. And maybe some raider camps and animal packs here and there (as I said, I usually disagree with putting enemies everywhere, but the wasteland is supposed to be a dangerous place).
 
Lumpy said:
I've never considered combat fun, so in my opinion, adding creatures to a boring walk turns it into a boring walk full of chores.
One thing Oblivion did right was adding horses as a means of transportations. This allowed you to enjoy the scenery without being bored by a too long walk. Of course, Fallout can't really have any easily available means of transportation. That's why it should still have map travel.
Click to expand...
The problem with horses in Oblivion was their implementation. It pretty much sucked.
I'm glad you don't want to populate the wasteland with creatures, though.
But you should also be able to travel by yourself. And you can make travel interesting without any combat. Just put relics of the old civilization everywhere. Ruined highways and streetsigns. Ruined cities, as seen in Fallout 1. Broken cars. Maybe remains of massacred ghouls. And maybe some raider camps and animal packs here and there (as I said, I usually disagree with putting enemies everywhere, but the wasteland is supposed to be a dangerous place).
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that you'd prefer the Arcanum system, with ruins scattered around, and beasties about as frequent as the random encounters in Fallout were? Sounds about right.
 
Lumpy said:
But you should also be able to travel by yourself. And you can make travel interesting without any combat. Just put relics of the old civilization everywhere. Ruined highways and streetsigns. Ruined cities, as seen in Fallout 1. Broken cars. Maybe remains of massacred ghouls. And maybe some raider camps and animal packs here and there (as I said, I usually disagree with putting enemies everywhere, but the wasteland is supposed to be a dangerous place).
Click to expand...

I like the sound of this. Maybe interesting and/or plot-related encounters could be inserted dynamically, so that you could meet unique groups of raiders, traders or travellers anywhere within certain limits. Instead of dropping the player into an environment from the world map saying "something happens now", you'd suddenly spot some people a way off, or get ambushed in the ruins of a small town, or something. If you'd chosen "abstract" travel, the game would simply drop you in the same situation.

Sander said:
So what you're saying is that you'd prefer the Arcanum system, with ruins scattered around, and beasties about as frequent as the random encounters in Fallout were? Sounds about right.
Click to expand...

I don't actually remember meeting beasts or Molochian hand guys when running around in the wild in Arcanum. I never even found that yeti thing.
 
Per said:
I don't actually remember meeting beasts or Molochian hand guys when running around in the wild in Arcanum. I never even found that yeti thing.
Click to expand...
Well, I do. In fact, I had them quite a bit. It was a tad unbalanced in Arcanum at times, though. I went up 4 or 5 levels just travelling to Tarant.
 
If they want to make it more explorable, place more little interest points on the world map. Little things like ruins you can stop an explore, not everything has to be significant to the plot or have a quest. Even then, I'd rather a few areas with alot to do and well-fleshed quests and such, than a ton of areas where you just wander around a go "hrmm, neat".

Like Sander said, Arcanum had a good system. Every now and then you'd run into something like a rat cave or a small swamp that you could wander and explore, sometimes finding something neat. They weren't all over, they didn't take anything away from the game, the just added onto it, but in a very small way.
 
Per said:
I don't actually remember meeting beasts or Molochian hand guys when running around in the wild in Arcanum. I never even found that yeti thing.
Click to expand...
what what what?

- molochean hand guys (first a solo dude, then he brings friends because they're getting their ass kicked)
- kite people
- orcs demanding a payoff to let you pass (eep, try again)
- wolves, bears, those gorilla things
- poachers
- whisps
- those miniature lizard meets dragon thingies
& so on & so forth

how can you not remember? did you go for teleportation right away or something? (althought that requires lvl 15, i believe)
 
I meant "running around" literally. I did get encounters when doing travel on the world map. I wonder if they even bothered to design the countryside so that you'd come across people in the same way that you'd get random encounters from the world map.
 
Per said:
I meant "running around" literally. I did get encounters when doing travel on the world map. I wonder if they even bothered to design the countryside so that you'd come across people in the same way that you'd get random encounters from the world map.
Click to expand...
well, i never tried to really do everything on foot without maptravel, but they did model stuff that you couldnt see on the map.

the best example are the shipwrecks near Caladon. loot ahoi!
 
Per said:
I meant "running around" literally. I did get encounters when doing travel on the world map. I wonder if they even bothered to design the countryside so that you'd come across people in the same way that you'd get random encounters from the world map.
Click to expand...
Well, not the Molochean hand. I did encounter things like wolves and such, though.
 
Fallout's random encounters had several flaws. Walking right into the middle of a pack of Radscorpions is a bit silly, even for a low Outdoorsman character. Getting out of the car when you don't want to fight them is stupid. And escaping from monsters faster than you by walking to the edge of the map makes no sense.
So in Fallout 3, whenever you encounter something, you should be placed in the gameworld. You should only be able to reenter map travel when there are no enemies nearby, so you can either fight them, or run away from them if you are faster. If you have a car (if there are cars), you have the option to ignore the encounter.
As for special encounters, they shouldn't exist unless the character has a high enough luck. And randomizing them sounds like a good idea.
 
Lumpy said:
Fallout's random encounters had several flaws. Walking right into the middle of a pack of Radscorpions is a bit silly, even for a low Outdoorsman character.
Click to expand...
what made you an authority on giant radscorpion hunting habits?

it's quite common for many beasts to hunt in packs, which often means luring or chasing their prey into an ambush or surrounding the prey before engaging.

Lumpy said:
Getting out of the car when you don't want to fight them is stupid.
Click to expand...
you prefer: "The enemy shoots out your tires. Walk to the nearest town to buy or salvage a new set."?

Lumpy said:
And escaping from monsters faster than you by walking to the edge of the map makes no sense.
Click to expand...
all PnP RPG's have escape rolls (which is from where the entire game is derived). this would've been hard to implement, so they went with an arbitrary 'safe' area or an area where the enemy presumably would give up pursuit.

Lumpy said:
You should only be able to reenter map travel when there are no enemies nearby, so you can either fight them, or run away from them if you are faster.
Click to expand...
that would create some trouble, TES4-style. being unable to travel due to some nitwit mob thats on the other side of the wall but cant find a way to you & such. a real pain in the ass.
not to mention small pests that are always hostile but not necessarily aggro'ed.

a single malfunctioning mob could then wreck your entire game...
Lumpy said:
If you have a car (if there are cars), you have the option to ignore the encounter.
Click to expand...
yet again, would you prefer: "The enemy shoots out your tires. Walk to the nearest town to buy or salvage a new set."?

driving a car is fast travel. it leaves you less time to spot & react to a threat. so once you're surrounded or ambushed by something, what are you gonna do? play Carmageddon? wreck your radiator while running down badguys? possibily getting a bullet through the engineblock, perhaps?

Lumpy said:
As for special encounters, they shouldn't exist unless the character has a high enough luck. And randomizing them sounds like a good idea.
Click to expand...
you're obviously forgetting about unlucky encounters...

and yes, most special encounters had certain luck requirements, whats your point? if you dont like it, play FO with 05 luck & you probably wont get any. (i'm not talking about easteregg-fest FO2)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top