Thoughts on FO3 (Spoilers)(32hours played so far)(LONG POST)

[Docnemo]

Because fighting a bunch or raiders is real-time-tactical combat, not turn-based-strategy combat.

Then great, let's make it real time combat. I love Half-life, and there are many other great shooters out there ; Fallout 3 just isn't one of them.

Honestly I'm fine with real time combat, it's just the way they made it sucks. It's a boring clickfest, with the dumbest AI ever. Please enlighten me as to why you like Fallout 3's combat, its mindless and dull and repetitive and unstrategic aim n fire action.

What you miss is that Turn based combat is not meant to represent real combat ; it's meant to be fun, fun because it offers strategic possibilities. Because you can think, use many possibilities. Of course some of them are not realistic ; I mean, killing children isn't something I would do IRL either. But I guess it's thanks to people like you we get that mindless drone of a game where I get to click people to death with my club. Thanks dude.

 

[Buxbaum666]

You call me stupid and yet you believe in actual battle situation some "run up to the enemy and burst" (throwing grenades included) and monkey agility wouldn't be necessary ?!

We aren't talking about actual battle situations, we are talking about rollplaying games. What you don't seem to understand: RPG combat doesn't rely on the players abilities, it relies on the abilities of the character. That's one of the main things distinguishing RPGs from shooters.

I personally think a VATS solution combined with the "No GOD mode VATS" MOD is an acceptable solution.
I make my "move(s)" so does the enemy/enemies and we all take proper damage in the same times.

You can't move in vats. Except for melee combat that magically teleports you to your enemy.
And I don't know what game you are playing but for me it's more like this: I make my "moves" in vats and then I have to go all first-person shooteresque if I don't want to die until my "action points" have replenished. I don't like that at all.

Because fighting a bunch or raiders is real-time-tactical combat, not turn-based-strategy combat.

Which is fine for a first-person shooter.

 

[Eternal]

Not this shit again.

Either you are stupid, or simply don't know what Turn Based is. It's an abstract representation of combat, a more realistic and tactical one, since there's no "run up to the enemy and burst" bullshit prevalent in real-time combat.

What matters is player's tactical skill, not his monkey-like agility.

You call me stupid and yet you believe in actual battle situation some "run up to the enemy and burst" (throwing grenades included) and monkey agility wouldn't be necessary ?!

TBS is some pen and paper geeks chess form when they had nothing better then to imagine D&D. Nice for 1974 but outdated today.

I personally think a VATS solution combined with the "No GOD mode VATS" MOD is an acceptable solution.
I make my "move(s)" so does the enemy/enemies and we all take proper damage in the same times.

That's not to say TBS doesn't have its merits or place in the game-world; but when outside games like in the Civilization series and Total War (world/campaign 4x4 map; witch I personally love) it shows show flaws.

This is where games like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway from the first/third tactical-shooter perspective and Commandos 3 from an isometric-like RTT perspective really kills Fallout 1and 2's TBS combat mode (BiA:HH shames Fallout 3 BTW).

Why ?!

Because fighting a bunch or raiders is real-time-tactical combat, not turn-based-strategy combat.

You distinctly ignore that he said that TB combat is 'abstract' I personally tend to look at TB combat as a different way to view combat. You can choose to look at it as simply back and forth but in a game like Fallout 1 or 2 that utilizes agility, action points, and a simple unit order stack (which means you can sometimes move before or sometimes after the other person) It can actually be viewed as a real time conflict shown in snapshots where your 'turns' are simply part of your series of actions done and then cut up into pieces, and same for the other person. As you make a split second decision so does your opponent but rather than show your action at the same time as your opponents action it seperates them.

This is where action points come into play, that is how your 'reaction time' is determained, how much you can do in a 'turn' is dictated by how many action points you have, so while in a 'real time' setting you can shoot, turn around, run back for cover all while being shot at and your results in said action are based off your real life reaction times, you can shoot, turn around, and run for cover in a turn based game where your reaction time is based around your characters agility and therefor its action points. Turn based RPGs allow you to enter deeper into the character you CREATE and makes statistics and numbers much more important, whereas real time rpgs are less story immersive but more environment immersive as it requires you to actively learn about your surroundings and whatever character you play invariably reacts how YOU would react to a situation, as opposed to how you want this person you created and control to react to a given situation.

 

[zioburosky13]

>
Turned based combat makes no sense really, it's just not real;

Of course it's not real. IT is a video game, after all.
Geez...
Did you mix up reality and virtual world?

 

[Sander]

This is where games like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway from the first/third tactical-shooter perspective and Commandos 3 from an isometric-like RTT perspective really kills Fallout 1and 2's TBS combat mode (BiA:HH shames Fallout 3 BTW).

Why ?!

Because fighting a bunch or raiders is real-time-tactical combat, not turn-based-strategy combat.

And Jagged Alliance 2 smokes both those games in tactical complexity.

Turn-based combat inherently allows for more tactical options and complexity because it is much easier to create a system that works in turn-based combat.

Also, the idea that turn-based combat isn't real is funny, but misses the point that it is an abstraction, while real-time combat often tries to be a simulation. These are entirely different things.

 

[Ihniwid]

This is where games like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway from the first/third tactical-shooter perspective and Commandos 3 from an isometric-like RTT perspective really kills Fallout 1and 2's TBS combat mode (BiA:HH shames Fallout 3 BTW).

Why ?!

Because fighting a bunch or raiders is real-time-tactical combat, not turn-based-strategy combat.

And Jagged Alliance 2 smokes both those games in tactical complexity.

Turn-based combat inherently allows for more tactical options and complexity because it is much easier to create a system that works in turn-based combat.

Also, the idea that turn-based combat isn't real is funny, but misses the point that it is an abstraction, while real-time combat often tries to be a simulation. These are entirely different things.

Yeah I agree with Sander. However both tactical/FPS and Turn-based gameplay have their place. I wouldn't personally consider one better than the other. They both involve skill.

It'd be like comparing a chess player and a tennis player. (In a way, lol FPS players are in no way as fit as a tennis player, i was just refering to ways in which they are played, so don't get all touchy with the comparison... )

 

[Eternal]

Back to the original intent of this post, my experience of trekking through the wastes, and how I feel about them.

I just went to Anadel, and I must say.. wow.. that is some AWFUL AWFUL writing and scripting.

***Spoiler Alerts***

Ok, not really cause the writing is so bad you see it a mile away. There is no attempt to hide that they are cannibals, its so blatantly obvious its almost insulting. The scripts are beyond poorly written for setup and execution, I went inside one of the houses first and talked to the families and then I went and talked to Old Man Harris, the first house I entered gave me responses like I had talked to Harris already, and talking to Harris there is a response 'I don't know you're the only person I have talked to here' When he was like the 3rd or 4th.

All of the responses are so bland and generic and POINTLESS first person I talk to my responses are 'what do you do here?' and 'Do you like it here?' WTF WHY DO I CARE?! WHY AM I ASKING?! The town has existed for generations yet there are only 2 families? How inbred are these people? How is 3houses 'a town'? Why is it that after I kill the parents if I go into their, now abandoned, homes and try and take anything its considered stealing and I'll lose karma?

For the most part I've enjoyed to some extent my trek through the wastelands (mainly because I'm enjoying the exploration rather than the story or combat) but Anadel was an INSULT, a veritable slap in the face. Not only was it poorly written, poorly executed, poorly programed, and plain boring, IT WAS A RATHER INTERESTING IDEA THAT GOT RAPED BY A PACK OF WILD GECKOS. I would have enjoyed a little bit more exploration and explanation of the 'Stepford wives' meets 'Cannibals' idea, but the whole damn bit plays out in 3 coversations consisting of 2responses each in a dialog tree that totals around 6phrases, then you just enter the basement or shed and BAM whole thing is over, time from entering Anadel to finishing it was less than 10minutes.

 

[Mapex]

I think half of the problems with the game are due to the TES engine more than anything. The developers were probably like "well, we already have code that makes it bad to steal, so let's just leave it in there!". IMO, you shouldn't lose any karma or anger anyone with a good enough Steal skill and the environmental factors that allow you to steal unnoticed. It's a dog eat dog wasteland, you need to scavenge and steal if you want to survive. And, ideally, it'd be very difficult to find things in the wastes that people haven't taken for themselves, meaning you'd have to take from these people.

 

[Eternal]

Sorry to graverob but I went out of town for 3 days and couldn't get online to update.

Anyways I stoped playing after the Anadel incident. I only had done Blood Ties and Galaxy News Radio as the major quests. I didn't play the game for 2 days and then my rental time was up, so I turned it in. Now normally would re-rent a game I was enjoying (or even just buy it) but I'm hesitant to even bother. Even though I could rent it for free, I really am not sure if I should bother. I kind of want to, but really if I wanted to play a shooter I could just play Gears of War 2, Quake 3, HalfLife 2, Teamfortress 2, or even Metroid Prime and if I wanted to play an RPG I could play FO1/FO2/Planescape Torment/Baldurs Gate/NWN Nights/ or any of a numerous console RPGs or handheld RPGs.

I enjoyed most of my experience in the DC wastes, as long as I thought of it as a spin-off FPS version of Fallout, and didn't dwell on the details, but Anadel just pissed me off with its poor writing and execution.

Do you think I should bother re-renting it? (I will buy it for the PC once I upgrade my comp and if/once some good mods are developed)

 

[Barbalute]

Well, you said you enjoyed most of your experience in the DC wastes. If that's not a good reason to rent it (especially for free!) I don't know what is.

 

[Elandarex]

Sorry to drag this nonsense back up but...

Turned based combat makes no sense really, it's just not real;

You honestly can't criticize turn based combat for not being realistic unless the so-called "realistic" FPS combat stops treating head shots as the go-to option in ranged combat. There's a reason that in reality people are trained to shoot for the torso as opposed to the head and that's because being shot tends to take a lot of fight out of someone, certainly enough to offset the potential for an instant-kill shot to the cranial region.

Thing is, we're using RPG statistics to govern the outcome of a world organized through unrealistic, abstracted rules. Realism, except in its most abstracted form, has nothing, nothing, to do with a combat system in an RPG. Sorry but that's just how it is.

So your options are: realistic health and damage systems that realistically lead to the PC's death over and over using "realistic" combat complete with cheap shots from off screen because people don't fight fair (except for the holier-than-thou BoS splinter in this game I suppose), or an abstract system of rules governing life and death that facilitate a more dramatically satisfying battle routine through the application of an abstract combat system. You know, despite my love for Quick Save/Load, I'm thinking the latter sounds more fun. And god help the console players who lack Quick Save if they had to suffer through an open world game with the former setup.

 

[Viliny]

stuff

God, you are so far off it's embarrassing.

 

[Ninjerk]

Sorry to drag this nonsense back up but...

Turned based combat makes no sense really, it's just not real;

You honestly can't criticize turn based combat for not being realistic unless the so-called "realistic" FPS combat stops treating head shots as the go-to option in ranged combat. There's a reason that in reality people are trained to shoot for the torso as opposed to the head and that's because being shot tends to take a lot of fight out of someone, certainly enough to offset the potential for an instant-kill shot to the cranial region.

Thing is, we're using RPG statistics to govern the outcome of a world organized through unrealistic, abstracted rules. Realism, except in its most abstracted form, has nothing, nothing, to do with a combat system in an RPG. Sorry but that's just how it is.

So your options are: realistic health and damage systems that realistically lead to the PC's death over and over using "realistic" combat complete with cheap shots from off screen because people don't fight fair (except for the holier-than-thou BoS splinter in this game I suppose), or an abstract system of rules governing life and death that facilitate a more dramatically satisfying battle routine through the application of an abstract combat system. You know, despite my love for Quick Save/Load, I'm thinking the latter sounds more fun. And god help the console players who lack Quick Save if they had to suffer through an open world game with the former setup.

The marines are trained to shoot heads! Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, sime TB RPGs have you queque up the actions first and then plays the battle animation as a whole based on the choices. I could see that being realistic.

 

[Misanthropicus Grandiosus]

You call me stupid and yet you believe in actual battle situation some "run up to the enemy and burst" (throwing grenades included) and monkey agility wouldn't be necessary ?!

TBS is some pen and paper geeks chess form when they had nothing better then to imagine D&D. Nice for 1974 but outdated today.

I personally think a VATS solution combined with the "No GOD mode VATS" MOD is an acceptable solution.
I make my "move(s)" so does the enemy/enemies and we all take proper damage in the same times.

That's not to say TBS doesn't have its merits or place in the game-world; but when outside games like in the Civilization series and Total War (world/campaign 4x4 map; witch I personally love) it shows show flaws.

This is where games like Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway from the first/third tactical-shooter perspective and Commandos 3 from an isometric-like RTT perspective really kills Fallout 1and 2's TBS combat mode (BiA:HH shames Fallout 3 BTW).

Why ?!

Because fighting a bunch or raiders is real-time-tactical combat, not turn-based-strategy combat.

No offense dude but with that attitude?... GTFO...

Fallout never was about twitch-gaming and it shouldn't be now. Stop complaining about VATS, as that is one of the very few redeeming qualities of this game alltogether. It's the only time that remotely resembles skill-use from the original games.
If you belong to the group who think that time stops during VATS then you need to open your eyes. The game pauses letting you select where you want to shoot, then when you press okay it all resumes, everyone's shooting at you while you perform the selected shots.
If you want a twitchfest go play your favourite FPS. Fallout is not and was never supposed to be that. Hence why your skill levels are still appied even to your 'live action' shots and you often miss if you can'T use a weapon class properly.
Turn based might not be 'the shit' that today's braindead console gamers want, but for those who actually want to think then play for reflex, turn based gives just that. It's like comparing Chess to paintball.
So I'd appreciate it if you started thinking before bringing up false arguments.

And your last line? No comment... go back to FPS-land and be happy...

With that being said I think I've made enough of an ass of my mouth for today. SOrry I just don'' tolerate mindless rants too well and end up riling myself up...

 

[Ausdoerrt]

You call me stupid and yet you believe in actual battle situation some "run up to the enemy and burst" (throwing grenades included) and monkey agility wouldn't be necessary ?!

TBS is some pen and paper geeks chess form when they had nothing better then to imagine D&D. Nice for 1974 but outdated today.

1) You totally ignored the comments that TB is an abstract representation of combat;
2) Chess was invented in China in like first millenium B.C.! And it's just a bunch of geeks taking turns moving the pieces and taking each other's pieces! Cmon! This is not realistic at all! Could you stop time and think for an hour about how to move one soldier on a real battlefield? Heck no! Chess could maybe work well back in the days, when they didn't have the thechnology, but it's so outdated now, because we have Halo!!!!

-is what you sound like. "TB is outdated and unrealistic" is a bunch of BS.

 

[Elandarex]

The marines are trained to shoot heads! Otherwise, I agree.

You learn something new every day I guess. Of course, it's not like I have any experience outside of what I've been told about police work and soldiering in Canada so it's not surprising that I would be proven wrong about being focused on torso targeting. Still, is there any reason why, in particular, the Marines (and I'm assuming this means the American Marines) would be trained to go for the head shot? And is it just the Marines who receive this training or anyone in the armed forces in the States? Hell, I could very well be incorrect about Canadian soldiers as well.

Still, from a "realistic" standpoint, an isolated Vault Dweller with no military training exposed to the harsh wastes of a PA world wouldn't last long if he/she didn't learn to not go for the head shot. And, in a strictly realistic sense, that trial by fire training would have deeply ingrained just how effective torso shots would be (disregarding body armour, naturally).