What Makes A Good Fallout Game?

[Kohno]

What makes a good Fallout game?

What matters, is:
- Well designed character systems (that heavily governs combat efficiency, world interactions, NPC interactions, the PC's miscellaneous traits),
- Sufficiently mature and largely player driven branching narrative and side content
- Multipath/multisolution quests and stories
- Choices and consequences, cause and effect, reactivity; smaller and larger scale, immediate and more down the line
- Highly reactive ending slides (and a proper ending to the game)
- Player accountability to his actions
- Turnbased combat (that's preferably tactical but not too heavy handed - e.g. Jagged Alliance 2 level of depth might be unfit for the purpose, good as it might be in that game - there is a balance to be found)
- Gameplay and content focus spread evenly enough so that no single feature (e.g. combat) outright overshadows other forms of gameplay
- All that happening in a setting that makes sense within the context of the Fallout fiction (as originally envisioned)

What doesn't really matter, or is secondary, is:
- Whether or not it is straight linked to past games (through recurring enemies and factions and telltales) in the series. I would prefer a nigh complete detachment from the past.
- The perspective. Cavalier oblique or ISO would be preferred, but if the gameplay and character systems work well, it doesn't matter all that much. The game could well be modeled after Witcher 1, Kotor 2, Wizardry 8, or even Dreamweb or the B.A.T. series from the days of yore. Just as long as it's turnbased and systems heavy in a similiar fashion to the original two games.

 

[0wing]

- Turnbased combat (that's preferably tactical but not too heavy handed - e.g. Jagged Alliance 2 level of depth might be unfit for the purpose, good as it might be in that game - there is a balance to be found)

You are everywhere with '' has to be turn-based' now? We Vince D.Weller now? Tactics and Van Buren (it's in tech demo so shut up on 'not happend!') does give an option to turn some sort of 'real time', Tim Cain himself bring the same to Arcanum. You won't question authority of Tim Cain, do you?

Nope, sir. Turnbased combat is secondary thing. If not background thing.

 

[Fallout Guy117]

From what gathered, there are three main points that need to be worked on in order for a more positive approved Fallout game can be achieved.

° BETTER SENCIBILITY IN WORLD BUILDING
° MORE DIVERSSE AND COMPLEX CHOICES
° EVENTUALY, OR QUICKLY FACING THE CONSIQUENCES OF ONES CHOICES.

 

[R.Graves]

Nope, sir. Turnbased combat is secondary thing. If not background thing.

I agree. I will say that a fully realized 3d world makes It much more difficult to have reactivity and more assets and shit. Isometric is the best format as far as I know for rpgs.

 

[Fallout Guy117]

While I can't fully agree on the isometric play, it is by all means ingrained in rpg game style history. I think what makes 3D and first and third person a more common choice is that the makers what you to sort if be the gear for your character, or rather its literal brain. Third us just awsome to look at from multiple angles when your not in battle.

 

[Kohno]

You are everywhere with '' has to be turn-based' now?

Yeah. Always thought that way and it's not going to change. That's the way the series originated and the way all the really good games in the series are.

We Vince D.Weller now?

No.

Tactics and Van Buren does give an option to turn some sort of 'real time', Tim Cain himself bring the same to Arcanum.

We all know how well those worked (i.e. not really well)... I'm not diametrically opposed to having and option, but the default focus needs to be turnbased done well and not marred by having to balance two methods working through the same systems, or 1/3 of the way gimmicks like VATS.

You won't question authority of Tim Cain, do you?

Why would it be a question of authority? Fallout was decidedly made turnbased by him, even if it could've been made real time to match the competition at the time.

Nope, sir. Turnbased combat is secondary thing. If not background thing.

Nope. The series was created combat first and setting afterwards (in Tim's paraphrased words, to show that TB combat can be fun). You wouldn't question Tim's authority on that, would you?

 

[R.Graves]

Eh... The only turn based combat I've enjoyed was south park the stick of truths. Fallout 1 & 2's combat is just So slow. I wanna get to the next town and talk to people consarnit. A maybe do a little questin' dagnabit. I don't know how much of my life has been wasted by sitting there watching like thirty wolves each take thier turn. Its not very engaging either. Right click then click the enemy, then wait for him and his 5 buddies to take their turns. Then right click then click the enemy. Repeat until dead. Its monotonous as all hell.

 

[Kohno]

Can't argue with your feelings. I guess it's a good thing for you that Fallout has gone where it is in that regard. My trash, your treasure and all that.

 

[R.Graves]

Can't argue with your feelings. I guess it's a good thing for you that Fallout has gone where it is in that regard. My trash, your treasure and all that.

I think proper fallout is great as both isometric and FPS rpg (NV). I just feel that the classic fallout could have been more engaging in The combat department. Maybe offer more in detail descriptions of the actions NPCs are taking. Or at the very least have the animations play faster. Did you not like NV?

 

[Fallout Guy117]

I think proper fallout is great as both isometric and FPS rpg (NV). I just feel that the classic fallout could have been more engaging in The combat department. Maybe offer more in detail descriptions of the actions NPCs are taking. Or at the very least have the animations play faster. Did you not like NV?

I did enjoy New Vegas very much, the only issue was that it felt a bit empty scene wise, but made up for that with so many amazing creature variations and such.

 

[Kohno]

I just feel that the classic fallout could have been more engaging or at the very least have the animations play faster. Did you not like NV?

Wasn't the combat speed slider enough?
TB in Fallout is certainly not the height of TB design. It could've had more features, but what it wanted to do it did well enough.

I did like NV to some degree, but not for its gameplay. It was too clearly a shooter wannabe (the devs even admitted they wanted it to feel "better as a shooter") whose design was inherited from Fallout 3 (e.g. almost ineffective skills for combat because it had to work as a shooter too and ultimately both, the RPG mechanics and the shooter mechanics, ended up less than stellar both trying to cancel eachother out). I did finish it twice, but the second time was already starting to be a bore due to how the games mechanics, the minute to minute gameplay, worked. Third time I couldn't even get halfway through before hitting a wall.

New Vegas would've been great if it had turnbased combat (or even a VATS that worked somewhere like how combat in Wizardry 8 worked) and the map travel and hub design along the lines of the originals. It felt it tried to have too expansive scale for a singular compressed sandbox, and that ended hurting the overall feel of it even if the narrative and quest design were good on their own merits.

New Vegas is lots of good ideas tainted by inherited shit design.

 

[0wing]

[wall]

Eh, no. Fallout and New Vegas ("the all good in the series", however pretentious and edgy it wasn't sound) equally flawed in combat design. The first one was very basic, enemies think too long and make stupid decisions anyway and no proper party management and other, well... half-assed (although mods fixed it, yup) and also very basic and barebone but at least it works fast. The only good with F1 had over FNV is DT being before DR, not the other way around which prevents damage from being inflicted from the weapons for example not suitable for penetrating Power Armor. Arcanum wasn't mentioned for nothing because it's basically evolved Fallout with steampunk and magic. So, it's more matter where the series should go and evolve and less about how originated. People didn't liked and remembered Fallout just because it's turn-based bloodbath, the marked already had more suitable games for this. I don't question Tim's authority but I think that HIS TB isn't fun, it's underdeveloped. I had more fun in combat with Silent Storm than Fallout

 

[Kohno]

Fallout and New Vegas ("the all good in the series", however pretentious and edgy it wasn't sound) equally flawed in combat design.

Sure, they are both flawed. But they were also completely different designs striving for completely different experiences and with completely different flaws when it comes to combat flow, efficiency and mechanical effects from the PC build. There's no "=" between them to say "equally flawed". If they both were flawless, they'd still be completely different.

So, it's more matter where the series should go and evolve and less about how originated.

There's no evolving if you neglect the past, just mutation.
Fallout didn't get that chance to evolve so now we have shitty shooters for the series.

People didn't liked and remembered Fallout just because it's turn-based bloodbath

Not just because of it (obviously not), but you can't deny it did its part. It wasn't exclusively a TB combat game (like Silent Storm or Jagged Alliance), but neither was it an interactive CYOA lorebook where the design wouldn't matter. It was a sum of its parts and I highly doubt it would've had the same effect if it had been a Diablo clone (for example).

 

[Deeves]

The core tenets of Fallout 1 straight from the horse's mouth.

Edit: Wiki page for people having browser problems with the PDF

 

[0wing]

The core tenets of Fallout 1 straight from the horse's mouth.

For ants?

 

[Kohno]

The core tenets of Fallout 1 straight from the horse's mouth.

The zoom-in doesn't seem to work. Text remains unreadable. I have read it before, but it'd be nice to refresh.

 

[0wing]

There's no evolving if you neglect the past, just mutation.
Fallout didn't get that chance to evolve so now we have shitty shooters for the series.

I'd say only New Vegas evolved over two iterations and created an exciting synthesis of two very flawed designs since Fallout 2 for obvious reason (10 month of development, geez) remains the same in core design and Fallout 3 you judge for yourself. The only thing I wanted from old combat is DT+DR, not just DR and FNV brought it some way.

Not just because of it (obviously not), but you can't deny it did its part

If most people remembered New Vegas and still crying for cancellation of Van Buren and remember it too as a great and true Fallout games than combat isn't in frontline of things that makes Fallout, well.. Fallout.

 

[Kohno]

I'd say only New Vegas evolved over two iterations and created an exciting synthesis of two very flawed designs since Fallout 2 for obvious reason (10 month of development, geez) remains the same in core design and Fallout 3 you judge for yourself. The only thing I wanted from old combat is DT+DR, not just DR and FNV brought it some way.

I would call New Vegas a valiant effort in trying fix up where Fallout 3 went wrong with that games tools, but I do also think they should've gone further (if it was at all possible).
The iron sights, I felt, were a useless addition (even harmful in some sense).
The skill effects on combat should've been more about accuracy and less about damage (aside from melee/HtH).
VATS should've been redesigned to better resemble a TB combat scenario (e.g. similiar to Wizardy 8 combat, that I mentioned earlier).
The sandbox map should've been split up as hubs on a worldmap with random encounters in between (not straightly related to combat, but still).
Those would've done a great deal already in favor of the game even if everything else remained intact.

(10 month of development, geez)

18. But still, yeah.

 

[0wing]

I would call New Vegas a valiant effort in trying fix up where Fallout 3 went wrong with that games tools, but I do also think they should've gone further (if it was at all possible).

I agree that Obsidian should go further but they already did huge amount of work in such short time.
Eh, map splitting worked in isometric games but in FP it'll look a bit cheesy and disjoined. But F2 3D remake does exactly this.

18. But still, yeah.

Wasn't it actually 15 month for FNV? But I was talking about Fallout 2, less than year!

 

[Deeves]

The skill effects on combat should've been more about accuracy and less about damage (aside from melee/HtH).

For the love of god, yes. Fallout should not be about pumping a hundred rounds into a bullet sponge until it dies. A maxed leveled 10 END character should still only be able to take 5 - 8 shots to the chest with a 5.56 round unarmored. Anything past that is superhuman, and should only be pushed past with Power Armor / Cybernetics / Drugs.

Your armor's DT, it's condition, and agility should be the determining factor for life and death, not how many bullets your squishy pink flesh can magically absorb.