What Makes A Good Fallout Game?

Cover based combat. No matter how much people dislike it, modern combat revolves around cover, and places without enough of it are (rightly) considered deathtraps even with a tactical superiority.
 
Cover based combat. No matter how much people dislike it, modern combat revolves around cover, and places without enough of it are (rightly) considered deathtraps even with a tactical superiority.

I'm not a big fan. I find the issue with it is that most that have it, relay way too much on it. There are a few exceptions however (Deus Ex HR, Alpha Protocol (I think it had CBC anyway).
When I think of CBC, I think of how bad Mass Effect's 1 combat system was, or how boring Gears of War is.
 
I'm not a big fan. I find the issue with it is that most that have it, relay way too much on it. There are a few exceptions however (Deus Ex HR, Alpha Protocol (I think it had CBC anyway).
When I think of CBC, I think of how bad Mass Effect's 1 combat system was, or how boring Gears of War is.
But it's realistic, and how can protection against bullet fire be too much?

Combat is more about suppression and pinning rather then hitting your enemies.
 
I'm not a big fan. I find the issue with it is that most that have it, relay way too much on it. There are a few exceptions however (Deus Ex HR, Alpha Protocol (I think it had CBC anyway).
When I think of CBC, I think of how bad Mass Effect's 1 combat system was, or how boring Gears of War is.
Cover is probably boring in shooter. But, in a turn base tactical squad game it add depth, as it make positioning, line of fire more important, instead of standing in the open. See Silent Storm, XCom, Xenonauts, Jagged Alliance (does it have one? Can't remember well), or FOT.
 
Last edited:
But it's realistic, and how can protection against bullet fire be too much?

Combat is more about suppression and pinning rather then hitting your enemies.
It might be realistic, but in a game where the player can take 200 bullets to the head and still be alive and killing enemies (and enemies doing the same) a fight would probably take a long time with *ducks behind a wall* *enemy ducks behind a metal container* *peeks and shoots* *enemy peeks and shoots* *both miss because of the cover* *rinse and repeat forever until the player runs out of ammo or gets bored and just storms the enemy's cover*... I don't think that makes a good fallout game (like the thread name asks). >_>
 
It might be realistic, but in a game where the player can take 200 bullets to the head and still be alive and killing enemies (and enemies doing the same) a fight would probably take a long time with *ducks behind a wall* *enemy ducks behind a metal container* *peeks and shoots* *enemy peeks and shoots* *both miss because of the cover* *rinse and repeat forever until the player runs out of ammo or gets bored and just storms the enemy's cover*... I don't think that makes a good fallout game (like the thread name asks). >_>
Make it so shooting is really dangerous and that headshots are instant kills, and that you become incapacitated after a shot pretty much anywhere.
 
Make it so shooting is really dangerous and that headshots are instant kills, and that you become incapacitated after a shot pretty much anywhere.
Again it doesn't make it a good Fallout game. Like @valcik said Fallout was first and most a P&P based RPG. That kind of combat system does not work well with games like these.
Well, to be honest even if you do that in a FPS, then you will have to enjoy reloading your game a lot, I guess that would be a way to exclude most bethdrones though. :lmao:
Remember kids, Fallout does not try to have realistic combat, to be honest I think combat in a Fallout game is the least important "piece of the puzzle".
The world, people, stories and character are the most important things in a Fallout game (for me, I have no problems with people who think otherwise), that and how the people and our character interact with their environment/world.
Well what I am trying to say is that a good Fallout game is (again for me) being faithful to a P&P experience. I am tired and can't convey my feelings and thoughts very well today, so just read what @valcik posted last page (too tired to go look for it and quote it:tired:), since I agree with his post. :nod:
 
Sometimes you can have a good idea but it may not fit within the universe/setting you've fabricated. Do NOT just put it in there anyway. (It's the on of the reasons they cut the S'Lanter from fo1.) Beth has made this mistake countless times. (The biggest imo Being synths) and if you have a good idea don't half ass it. (Again looking at Beth) and if you have no ideas maybe don't make that game (fallout 4).
 
That kind of combat system does not work well with games like these.
It does, if done right. Which is why cover is emphasized but it also creates fun, tactical and fast combat. Not HP fests where it takes 300 years to kill someone. Also, it makes armour much more important.
 
Any kind of conventional shooter mechanic won't contribute to "a good Fallout game" in a positive way. Covermechanic can work if the core gameplay mechanics work in a way that sufficently reflects that the game is an RPG (e.g. a turn-/pahsebased scenario), but striving for "a realistic shooter" just makes it pop-a-mole. Such doesn't really improve the HP bloat stuff, it's just different kind of bad (for this series).
 
Any kind of conventional shooter mechanic won't contribute to "a good Fallout game" in a positive way. Covermechanic can work if the core gameplay mechanics work in a way that sufficently reflects that the game is an RPG (e.g. a turn-/pahsebased scenario), but striving for "a realistic shooter" just makes it pop-a-mole. Such doesn't really improve the HP bloat stuff, it's just different kind of bad (for this series).
I was referring to a turn based isometric cover based combat. I dislike cover based combat in first person shooters.
 
Back
Top