What would *you* change to make FOT better??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silencer
  • Start date Start date
S

Silencer

Guest
I've been reading some posts, in fact a *lot* of posts, and a lot of them do not warmly welcome FOT. In most cases there are one or more aspects of FOT that people dislike, hate, or dispise. Some of them just totally bash the game altogether. I believe I am not alone in asserting that the entire *game* is not trash, but only certain aspects. I also think a lot was improved from FO1 and FO2.

Here's what I think they've improved on:

1) The use of many skills

In FO1 and FO2, all the skills were not used, or they were only used once in a unique quest / encounter. For example, Sneak. I have beaten FO1 and FO2 more times than I can count, and I never used Sneak once. In FOT, it is *very* useful.

2) The use of more realistic guns

Ok, I'm only about half way through the game, so I havent seen all the guns, but every single one I've seen is realistic/true to reality. You know, AK-47, M16A1, etc., *and* they use the proper ammunition, for the most part. I think this is a big improvement over FO2's "FN FAL", etc.


Here's what I'd change:

I read in one of roshambo's posts that he thinks every level is just a mouse maze. I agree with this for the most part. In St. Louis, there are many ways to go about completing your objectives, but this isn't true for all missions. I think giving the player more options would enhance the "tacticalness" of the game.

Ok, I don't even know why they call it Fallout: Tactics. There are hardly any tactics involved. You run up, you shoot. Ok, so you can be sneaky and hide behind barrels and broken down cars to evade the turrets, etc, but there are few combat tactics that can actually be used effectively. Bait and Wait is hard, because sometimes the enemy won't come...Putting down mines is tricky because you have to put them in front of moving soldiers, which will alert them to your presence and blow everything...I hope you get my point.

I think this is the high-tech era, but come on! I have a PIII @ 800Mhz and 128Mb RAM and i get 'lag'...a whole bunch of it. Now, I'd say I have a pretty beefy system...not a knock-your-socks-off, but a fair one, and when scrolling the map i get framiness and delayed reactions. This doesn't interfere with gameplay too much, but it gets annying. Now think of, say, a PII @ 400Mhz and 64Mb RAM. I know someone probably wouldnt put FOT on a comp like this, but this is what a lot of people i know have. I can only guess that this is true for areas other than mine as well. Anyway, On a comp described above there would be pronounced symptoms to the point where (at least I) wouldn't play the game. What i would change in FOT is to make it more "PC Friendly".

Ok...i'm done ranting and raving. Does anyone agree/disagree with my statements? What would *you* change? I'd really like to hear from rosh and see what he has to say because he's a pretty hardcore RP'er and he knows what makes a RP good... thanks!

-Silencer
 
Good points, but some critiques:

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-01 AT 11:22AM (GMT)[p]
What I have tried to do all this time, through witnessing the steady progression of FOT into the realm of "What the fuck?", I tried to give a proverbial kick to the ass or head. Apparently, I was given a similar proverbial reply, that of an upraised middle finger. Well, if the wankers at Interplay and MicroForte can't put two and two together and figure out that it's not such a good idea of "doing your own shit and disregard the original", much like it would be if Ed Wood did Episode 2, then screw them. But anyways...

>Here's what I think they've improved
>on:
>
>1) The use of many skills
>
>
>In FO1 and FO2, all the
>skills were not used, or
>they were only used once
>in a unique quest /
>encounter. For example, Sneak. I
>have beaten FO1 and FO2
>more times than I can
>count, and I never used
>Sneak once. In FOT, it
>is *very* useful.

Still, some skills are pretty useless, perhaps moreso. Science isn't that valuable, really. Might as well be ignored. Speech? Forget it. Used to be a big thing. Now it's nothing. I also like how someone was talking out their ass about "Speech Trees" that were supposedly in the game. (*coughctaylorcoughcough*)

Essentially, all they did was change the focus around a bit to pay attention to the skills that had to do with combat. There is no improvement, no regression, just a change in focus.


>2) The use of more realistic
>guns
>
>Ok, I'm only about half way
>through the game, so I
>havent seen all the guns,
>but every single one I've
>seen is realistic/true to reality.
>You know, AK-47, M16A1, etc.,
>*and* they use the proper
>ammunition, for the most part.
>I think this is a
>big improvement over FO2's "FN
>FAL", etc.

The guns in FOT are used of a *modern* make. NOT falling into the concepts of post-apocalyptical retrotech. Tommy guns and the FN FAL were a bit off in FO2 (but keep in mind that they didn't have the original creators of Fallout working on it). 'True to reality' is NOT what Fallout is about. It's about the science-fiction pulp of the Nuke Scare Era, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc. Cigar-shaped rockets, boxy and neo-boxy and robby robots, etc. All of that, you will see in Fallout. It is it's raison d'etre for being there in the game, and what gave Fallout it's rather unique flavor. "Dirty and gritty" as Taylor and pretty much of MicroForte has called it, is a really naive and idiotic description of Fallout's Universe. Fallout isn't about looking dirty or dark, or even with LOADS of rust (which MicroForte added to EVERYTHING to make it more 'retro' - notice with Fo1 and Fo2, very little rust?). Fallout is about post-apocalyptical science-fiction pulp-style from a particular era in the USA that was used because it was connected to nuclear disaster. Notice one of the loading screens of Fallout 1, with the pulp science-fiction there? Exactly.

Fallout 2 lost some of it, and then FOT seemingly disregarded it entirely. As I've said before, the FOT team should have played Fallout 1&2 and taken a good, hard look.

A big 'F' for MicroForte here. Keeping with the concepts before was my most vocal point if it was going to be called a Fallout game. Instead, it's just like a Feargus "Fuckwit" Urquart press-realease and name-dropping the name of Fallout.

Now, to conclude this rant, here's the most important or even basic things I would change in FOT to make it more of a Fallout or even a Tactical game.

1. JA2. X-Com. MicroForte needed to play either one of them, preferably both. Take good notes. Try to keep up with the tactical ability of those games. ANYTHING.

2. The setting. Instead of putting in dreck that looks like it should have been in Star Wars, put back in the robots that the first two had. The boxy, the neo-boxy, the cigar-shaped floating robot, the robby security bot. They weren't there for superfluity, the style of those robots were done for a reason. Rust on the power armor is not retro, and the construct of the suits of armor is laughable, sembling something that should have been in a fantasy game. The rust is impossible, due to the construct materials of the PA armor as well.

3. The guns go back to the original styles, insead of looking like someone broke into a munitions bunker today. Fallout was not meant to be a JA2, where the munitions fit exactly or whatever. Most of the guns were in science-fiction as well, and many were made-up or changed significantly before they went into Fallout. Opening up a gun encyclopedia of modern-day arms and browsing through it for guns, that's what i looks like they did. Nevermind the original concepts laid forth in the Fallout Universe.

4. Fix the FUBAR storyline. Okay, it's obvious that no-one of the concept team have played Fallout. Otherwise, they would have stuck to the concepts of the BOS rather than cheese off the fans akin to something that would comparatively be like having Adolf Hitler win a Nobel Peace Prize.

5. Give an actual variety of play. That's been a highlight of Fallout. Of course it's not an RPG, but uh...JA2 and X-Com, among others, can manage nonlinearity and such. And they are real tactical games.

6. Actually put in tactics. Again, they should have made an attempt or something. This game is comparatively having a blind man rebuild the Eifel tower from listening to someone over the phone (in fact, I have this theory that Fallout Tactics was made by a bunch of blind men who got the concepts behind Fallout AND Tactics told to them over the phone). For an example, X-Com. Numerous ways of approach and attack. Of course, your initial placement was a bit screwy, and that's why people like JA2, is because you can actually plan a method of attack. This, as the definition of tactics, is notably missing from FOT.

7. The manual. I would make it fit in with the others. Minus not being able to do that, I would at least have it contain pertinent game information, which it lacks numerous vital aspects of the game. Notably health effects and getting rid of them.

As it stands, with how the game is buggy, fits in with the previous games like a chicken in a pony show, and with numerous problems with the manual and such, it's little wonder that the game has been deemed Interplay Shovelware. A game that had so much potential and promises, and from the looks it was a raw prawn from the start, or else it would have had a good groundwork and basis (concepts). Instead they decided to do their own stuff, so it can't use the total excuse of being a Brian Fargo 18-month rushed game.

[font color=orange]
--------------------------------------------
Dennis Leary stole my song! That...asshole!
--------------------------------------------
"Robert, your time has come!"

"OOOH! Thank you, Master!"

"Don't mention it."

*Robert explodes in a shower of sparks*
--------------------------------------------
It's me, Jack Brown! The wind-up ass-hole!
--------------------------------------------

[font color=white]INTERPLAY: REDEFINING BAD BUSINESS

=========================
Try Arcanum, by those who brought you the first Fallout.
​
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

Well there's certainly plenty of things I would have changed...man what I wouldn't do to be on the FO3 design team. Anyway, I just went shooting the other day (yesterday) and saw an actual FN FAL... it vaguely looked like the one in FO2, but a FN FAL nonetheless. I withdrawl my remark about FN FAL's not being realistic.

Otherwise, I agree with what most of rosh said, like a blind guy trying to recreate the Eiffel Tower by listening to someone over the phone. I sense an attempt to recreate the Fallout feel, but they missed their mark by a million. It seems the people at MicroForte are just trying to win us over with snazzy-lookin power armor and "Fallout" in the name. I believe I saw in one of rosh's signatures the quote "In Fallout: Tactics, Fallout nor tactics come in contact with the game at any point". This sums up my opinions almost completely.

However I have some other feelings as well. Ok, so Fallout: Tactics doesn't have a pure "Fallout-ish" feel, and there aren't many tactics involved, but hell, I have fun when I play it. I think that's the real thing, whether you have fun/have a good time when you're playing it. Isn't that the whole purpose of video entertainment? I believe MicroForte was wrong to put a fallout name on a game that is most definitely not fallout, but, think about it, would we all have the same reactions if it was called "Squad Command: A Post-Nuclear Tactical Combat Game"? I think a lot of our criticisms lay in the fact that there is no connection with this game and the previous fallout games. So what? yeah i'm disappointed, but it's still a helluva fun game and i'll play it again and again...still...it doesn't feel right...

Nice try, MicroForte, but no cigar.

-Silencer
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

>Still, some skills are pretty useless,
>perhaps moreso. Science isn't
>that valuable, really. Might
>as well be ignored.
>Speech? Forget it.
>Used to be a big
>thing. Now it's nothing.
> I also like how
>someone was talking out their
>ass about "Speech Trees" that
>were supposedly in the game.
> (*coughctaylorcoughcough*)

I talked to one of the developers about this. I pointed out that Fallout and Fallout 2 were far more tactical than Fallout Tactics is simply because you can use Speech. After all, talking IS a tactic.

Case in point, the end of Fallout 2. You can talk to the enclave sargent outside where Frank is and get them to join you. Surprise! You've just added a squad of guys to help you, which is tactically wise.

Also, think about the miniquest in Fallout where you have to get Tandi back. Just talking to the Khan leader opens whole new opinions on how you can do it.

I hate to break this to everyone, but there's more to tactics than just shooting people.

>The guns in FOT are used
>of a *modern* make.
>NOT falling into the concepts
>of post-apocalyptical retrotech. Tommy
>guns and the FN FAL
>were a bit off in
>FO2 (but keep in mind
>that they didn't have the
>original creators of Fallout working
>on it). 'True to
>reality' is NOT what Fallout
>is about.
>Fallout 2 lost some of it,
>and then FOT seemingly disregarded
>it entirely. As I've
>said before, the FOT team
>should have played Fallout 1&2
>and taken a good, hard
>look.

I have to agree. Look at the names of the guns in Fallout. Most of them are nondescript, like "hunting rifle", "sniper rifle", "14MM pistol", "combat shotgun", and so on.

The more and more developers tie Fallout titles to real world weapons, the more and more Fallout loses it's "Alternate Universe" feel.

In the Fallout timeline, fusion power was developed in the mid1970s. Don't you think that would have altered the development of nearly everything from that point on? I don't think H&K would have worked on a P90c when they could be working on energy weapons.

>1. JA2. X-Com.
>MicroForte needed to play
>either one of them, preferably
>both. Take good notes.
> Try to keep up
>with the tactical ability of
>those games. ANYTHING.

Or even Cyberstorm.

>2. The setting. Instead
>of putting in dreck that
>looks like it should have
>been in Star Wars, put
>back in the robots that
>the first two had.
>The boxy, the neo-boxy, the
>cigar-shaped floating robot, the robby
>security bot. They weren't
>there for superfluity, the style
>of those robots were done
>for a reason.

Agreed. I've always been curious why MF decided to totally remake the robots for Fallout Tactics when there are established robots in the Fallout universe that could have been tweaked.

> Rust
>on the power armor is
>not retro, and the construct
>of the suits of armor
>is laughable, sembling something that
>should have been in a
>fantasy game. The rust
>is impossible, due to the
>construct materials of the PA
>armor as well.

That's because the BOS make their own power armor, supposedly. Apparently they couldn't make the material from the T-51b or the Enclaver armor, so they had to use metal. Still though, for a military outfit, you'd think they'd take the time to clean their PAs and sand the rust off.

>3. The guns go back
>to the original styles, insead
>of looking like someone broke
>into a munitions bunker today.
> Fallout was not meant
>to be a JA2, where
>the munitions fit exactly or
>whatever.

Not to mention there's weapons from WW2 and WW1 in Fallout Tactics. WW1 weapons would be 170 years old. Hardly common place in 2077 when the Great War ended.

The fact there's also the Sten Gun, which is a *EUROPEAN* SMG from WW2 is in the game is also fairly questionable. It wasn't even a GOOD SMG. You'd have better luck throwing the thing at your target rather than firing it at the target.

>4. Fix the FUBAR storyline.
> Okay, it's obvious that
>no-one of the concept team
>have played Fallout. Otherwise,
>they would have stuck to
>the concepts of the BOS
>rather than cheese off the
>fans akin to something that
>would comparatively be like having
>Adolf Hitler win a Nobel
>Peace Prize.

Most of this credit belongs to Tony Oakden of Micro Forte, and Dan Levin of Interplay for the story. Chris Taylor for signing off on all this. Finally, Brian Christian for setting the deadlines.

Tony's motto is simple, "If I think it's useless, remove it." That's basically like saying, "Just do it really half assed." After all, there are uses for all the Fallout skills in combat situations. All you have to do is script the game so the game knows they're useful.

And Dan Levin is just an idiot. I'm so happy that Intelligamer ripped Fallout Tactics for it's immature shit jokes.

>5. Give an actual variety
>of play. That's been
>a highlight of Fallout.
>Of course it's not an
>RPG, but uh...JA2 and X-Com,
>among others, can manage nonlinearity
>and such. And they
>are real tactical games.

The sad part is that the scripting on the maps can allow for this. You can even use global variables to change maps. Everything is set up for a non-linear game as far as the engine and map editors are concerned.

It's just impossible to make an engine, do all the artwork, etc. and make a nonlinear game in the time Ineptplay gave them.

>6. Actually put in tactics.
> Again, they should have
>made an attempt or something.

It plays like a really poor dungeon crawler, doesn't it?

>7. The manual. I
>would make it fit in
>with the others. Minus
>not being able to do
>that, I would at least
>have it contain pertinent game
>information, which it lacks numerous
>vital aspects of the game.
> Notably health effects and
>getting rid of them.

There's errors in it also, such as listing two modes of play for multiplayer when there's actually four.

> Instead they decided to
>do their own stuff, so
>it can't use the total
>excuse of being a Brian
>Fargo 18-month rushed game.

Fallout Tactics was given 12 months. They later upped that to 15 months. It didn't even get *18* months. :)

Okay, I also can't stand the Beastlords. I'm sorry, but a bunch of primatives who control animals with their minds and live in a dungeon under a graveyard.. Isn't that a subplot for a fantasy game?
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

i would definately change the ending. It was like the storywriters ran out of ideas. I thought the Robots were about is dumb as the beastlords. Don't get me wrong, i still think FOT is a cool game, but It could be so much better. And better yet, they couldve stopped jerking us around and just gave us fallout 3 like we asked.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

I played Tactics for a little while and really hated it.
There is no conception of tactics, the guns are totally unrealistic. Come on--an AK-47 with a "range" of 35 is useless
beyond 15 increments. In real life the AK-47 has a much longer raneg. I can see cutting the range for gam,e balance i.e. JA2, but COME ON. I've seen Raiders take 6 rounds of 7.62 from Hunting Rifles to be killed. Please!
The stance changing seems unnecessary. Why change stance if you don't need to worry about getting killed?
Why go for targeted shots if you miss a lot of the time anyway?
How can a person miss a Raider standing right in front of them when you are holding a hunting rifle?
The ladders and stairways are badly implemented. Not everyone in your squad goes down the stairs, just the first one or two guys.
What the designers did was take a roleplayig game and try and turn it into a tactical game a la JA or X-COM. JA2 is a tactical
game that has elements of roleplaying in it and is ten times better than FOT.
And don't get me started on the multiplayer....It's just Quake in an isometric perspective.
Most skills are unused-Science, Repair, Speech, Barter, Steal, Gambling, Unarmed, Melee Weapons. These are mostly useless.


I'm glad I only payed 3 dollars for a burned copy of this game, I would have hated to waste more money on it. I still have JA2 savegames I have to finish the game on and JA2 is like 2 years old--I'll never give FOT a second look.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

>I played Tactics for a little
>while and really hated it.
>
>There is no conception of tactics,
>the guns are totally unrealistic.
>Come on--an AK-47 with a
>"range" of 35 is useless
>beyond 15 increments. In real life
>the AK-47 has a much
>longer raneg. I can see
>cutting the range for gam,e
>balance i.e. JA2, but COME
>ON. I've seen Raiders take
>6 rounds of 7.62 from
>Hunting Rifles to be killed.
>Please!

I could say "since when did realism became a measure of a good game", but I have to admit - if they are putting a real-life weapon in the game, they better make it work the way it does in RL.

>The stance changing seems unnecessary. Why
>change stance if you don't
>need to worry about getting
>killed?

Eh? What?

>Why go for targeted shots if
>you miss a lot of
>the time anyway?

Later on, the problem becomes "why go for targeted shots if you do a lot of critical damage without targeting, and targeted shots take more valuable action points?"

>How can a person miss a
>Raider standing right in front
>of them when you are
>holding a hunting rifle?

Maybe your char has only 4 fingers. Damn mutie. <j/k>

>The ladders and stairways are badly
>implemented. Not everyone in
>your squad goes down the
>stairs, just the first one
>or two guys.

Oh yeah.

>What the designers did was take
>a roleplayig game and try
>and turn it into a
>tactical game a la JA
>or X-COM. JA2 is a

They didn't have time to do a revolutionary tactical game, Deadeye, and they said it themselves. In other words, they admitted it was a spinoff.

>tactical
>game that has elements of roleplaying
>in it and is ten
>times better than FOT.
>Most skills are unused-Science, Repair, Speech,
>Barter, Steal, Gambling, Unarmed, Melee
>Weapons. These are mostly useless.

They are not useless. They are just not the kind of skills you want to have in first 5 levels. Science is useless, Repair however gets your vehicles fixed (but since you can't take vehicles with you to a mission, I guess it is pretty useless), Steal is useful only if you ran out of ammo on mission and have nonhostile civilians around, and Gambling can get you stuff for free (then again, you often can just steal it).

[hr width=440]
[p align=center]
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3aa70eb96ee16565.gif[/p][p align=center][font color=FF00FF face=fixedsys]- Why hello there, Ranger -
[font color=00DD00 face=fixedsys]- (Sigh) Go away! -[/p]
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

>I could say "since when did
>realism became a measure of
>a good game", but I
>have to admit - if
>they are putting a real-life
>weapon in the game, they
>better make it work the
>way it does in RL.

I'd still say it. However, I agree it was a total mistake to add all the real life weapons to the game. I said this before, but I can't say it enough.. Name dropping real life weapons detracts from the alternative universe feel of the original Fallout.

I don't know why they did that in FO2 other than it being easier than thinking of generic and descriptive names and making generic looking weapons models that fit the description.

>>The stance changing seems unnecessary. Why
>>change stance if you don't
>>need to worry about getting
>>killed?
>
>Eh? What?

I rarely change stance. It's almost annoying when the enemy does it, truthfully. If you knock an enemy down to very low health, they get down behind a barricade and never get back up.

While this may be "realistic", it's really not that much fun. Sure, I know I wouldn't get back up if I knew I were going to die the second I did, but it's just plain boring having to walk up and shoot the guy over the wall. All it does is delay the inevitable.

>Later on, the problem becomes "why
>go for targeted shots if
>you do a lot of
>critical damage without targeting, and
>targeted shots take more valuable
>action points?"

Screw targeted shots! Sniper Perk rules the "later on". :)

Actually, I used targetting shots to the legs to make supermutants slow enough so I could run them over with the APC. Of course, the fact the APC is so slow, that it requires something like that to be able to run over a running super mutant makes me question the usefulness of the APC in the first place.

>They didn't have time to do
>a revolutionary tactical game, Deadeye,
>and they said it themselves.
>In other words, they admitted
>it was a spinoff.

Yup, Interplay's demand for a quick turn around is what screwed this title. Interplay didn't want Fallout Tactics to be a quality game. They just wanted a cheap, quick buck off an established name.

>They are not useless. They are
>just not the kind of
>skills you want to have
>in first 5 levels. Science
>is useless, Repair however gets
>your vehicles fixed (but since
>you can't take vehicles with
>you to a mission, I
>guess it is pretty useless),
>Steal is useful only if
>you ran out of ammo
>on mission and have nonhostile
>civilians around, and Gambling can
>get you stuff for free
>(then again, you often can
>just steal it).

In other words, useless. :)
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-01 AT 03:32PM (GMT)[p]double post....sorry.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

OK a few comments......

As far as the realism goes.... well you have to have realism in the game however there is a difference between in-game realism, and real-world realism. Since the game originally was supposed to depict in 50's pulp what would happen if the bombs dropped then you have to make things like human interactions realistic because obviously it is about humans(and ghouls and mutants... but inteligent talking creatures nonetheless), you also have to make sure that encounters will be reasonable since they will be between inteligent creatures most of the time, and you have to make the level of population reasonable since 99% is supposed to have died in 50's pulp, and well... I hope you get my point. What really pisses me off is when some moron says that there is no need to talk about realism when the game already has lazer rifles and fusion energy and so forth.... ofcourse there is... but then you are talking about in-game realism. Like it would be totally "unrealistic" to have a mage pop up all of a sudden, or to have the ability to fly because of mutation, or something as simple as a person automatically trust you because you talked to them and divulge all information.... That is because this would be totally out of character with the pulp feel which was made to semi-realistically depict what would happen after a nuclear war, not because it couldn't happen in the real world.

So I say that it is totally UNREALISTIC to have so many high grade guns floating around in a world with virtually no manufacturing capability. And it is unrealistic to have a military organization, a conceited one, let their armor rust or put frilly things like useless chains on it, or have the tech for night vision when the rest of them do not for the next seventy years according to the other games. And it is totally unrealistic to have the WASTELAND be so densely populated. It is also unrealistic to have recruitment posters for the brotherhood in hostile areas that have not even been explored. It is unrealistic for a military outfit not to be able to decide an exact point of entry into hostile territory(very important tactical point). It is unrealistic for other hostile forces not to aid their partners when they are being attacked. And what in the world is with the massive ammounts of Russian guns in the middle of America????

And I totally agree with the comment made about it being the wrong choice to actually put real world guns into the game instead of gneric subsitutes.... such as might be used in 50's pulp.

From what I said I think it is pertty easy to discern what to do to make the game better.

However I must also say that the postmortem done by Tony Oakden of MicroForte on the game gives me hope that they have learned a great ammount from their present mistakes and will really put out an awsome product if FOT2 ever happens.

And I do not think i could possibly use the words AND + REALISTIC any more without making myself sick. ;}

//It is berry skarry faiting tha snake.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

There is REALISM, and there is FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THE GAME UNIVERSE. Realism is when one 7.62mm round blasts your head off from 5 meters. Following the rules of the game universe is when 7.62mm rounds give about ~20% damage to a character/monster because it's a very common ammunition.

[hr width=440]
[p align=center]
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3aa70eb96ee16565.gif[/p][p align=center][font color=FF00FF face=fixedsys]- Why hello there, Ranger -
[font color=00DD00 face=fixedsys]- (Sigh) Go away! -[/p]
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-27-01 AT 09:52PM (GMT)[p]>Like it
>would be totally "unrealistic" to
>have a mage pop up
>all of a sudden, or
>to have the ability to
>fly because of mutation,

You mean like the Beastlords who can talk to the animals because they live in a dungeon under a graveyard which just happens to have some special radiation that makes people do that? :)

>or
>something as simple as a
>person automatically trust you because
>you talked to them and
>divulge all information.

I agree. I kind of like the fact you had to pry for information in Fallout and Fallout 2. It just seemed silly to me that in Fallout Tactics, you could walk up to someone and have them talk to you for three minutes straight.

I find it odd that people who complained about the need for realism and real world weapons are the same kind of people who don't complain about the lack of realism and the basic human ability to talk in the game.

>So I say that it is
>totally UNREALISTIC to have so
>many high grade guns floating
>around in a world with
>virtually no manufacturing capability.

I find it more odd that there aren't the modern civilian weapons, such as the 10MM weapons, but there are so many LOW GRADE weapons from World War 2 floating around.

In the 1950s, people built homes with fallout shelters. One of the key things to have in these shelters would be weapons. Now, that kind of explains why there's so many 10MM weapons and ammo in the two Fallout games. However, in the Midwest, most of those people like their guns. I can't imagine them letting 120 years go by, from WW2 to the time of the Great War, without updating their arsenals.

>And it is unrealistic to
>have a military organization, a
>conceited one, let their armor
>rust or put frilly things
>like useless chains on it,

Agreed.

Considering the BOS are tech collectors and science buffs, I find it also odd they'd pattern their armor after creatures in the wasteland.

>or have the tech for
>night vision when the rest
>of them do not for
>the next seventy years according
>to the other games.

Or the fact that if night vision existed at the time of the Great War, why does the most modern Power Armor, the T-51b, have a head light on it? Why do the sentry robots have headlights?

If night vision existed, surely they would have updated the eyepieces on the T-51b fairly quickly, since a headlight makes them an easy target.

>And it is totally unrealistic
>to have the WASTELAND be
>so densely populated.

Considering the population of the Midwest is fairly spread out also, it most certainly doesn't make much sense.

> It
>is also unrealistic to have
>recruitment posters for the brotherhood
>in hostile areas that have
>not even been explored.

How about the fact the Super Micro Sledgehammer is inside the Fusion Battery Storage Facility, which has been sealed and protected by turrets since the Great War? Read the description of the weapon in the game and it says the Brotherhood of Steel invented it.

How about the Metal Armor Mk2 that's in the church in Mission 6, complete with the BOS logo on it?

Things like that show an utter lack of polish.

>It is unrealistic for a
>military outfit not to be
>able to decide an exact
>point of entry into hostile
>territory(very important tactical point).

Very much agreed, this feature alone would have "doomed" most of the crappier, linear missions. It's hard to make a bunch of lame funnel missions if the player can go in from any direction.

>And what
>in the world is with
>the massive ammounts of Russian
>guns in the middle of
>America????

Or British WW2 SMGs like the Sten Gun?

>However I must also say that
>the postmortem done by Tony
>Oakden of MicroForte on the
>game gives me hope that
>they have learned a great
>ammount from their present mistakes
>and will really put out
>an awsome product if FOT2
>ever happens.

Read closer..

See, Tony seems to think that everything he feels is useless should be thrown out of the game. He even states that he thinks there is too much "Fallout" in Fallout Tactics.

In other words, instead of giving skills a use in the game, which would make for a more robust title.. Simply half ass the game and remove them.

One thing I thought was really lame was Tony claimed that pistols are utterly useless in Fallout Tactics. Well, two of the best pistols in Fallout and Fallout 2, the 14MM and the .223 pistols, aren't even in Fallout Tactics. Go Figure!

I also bet that Tony's never used the One Hander trait, and the gauss pistol. You can actually make a potent gunslinger character in Fallout Tactics with that trait. However, since Tony thinks pistols are useless, he'd most likely remove them all and the trait too.

I agree with Tony on the fact that Interplay didn't give Fallout Tactics enough time. However, when you have a guy who thinks the way Tony thinks watching over the design, you're never going to get a game with much depth.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-01 AT 07:39AM (GMT)[p]However there was a precedent for 'something' like that in FO where you had to get the head set to protect your mind from psionic attacks by the master. (just to point out)

It is really plot continuity that is lacking where Items pop up which should not be there, like the missplaced guns, or any number of other items. Or when items dissapear for no good reason. Or where things happen for no good damned reason. All we are really asking for is more than a half assed explanation for what happens since this is science fiction after all, and many things can occur. However, they must have a 'logical' explanation.... and for all the idiots out there, that doesn't mean real world logic but rather logic that fits within the reasonable parameters of the established setting.

Some of that was lacking in FO2 and I remember the bitching. Apparently they didn't pay attention and now we have a new installment that seems to make everybody daydream in pink about the 'lack of bugs' and 'well balanced plot' of FO2.

Oh... and I still have hope for Tony if for no other reason than that he seems to have paid attention to what die hard Fans and critics of FO were saying at the time of the making of the game. (I think comments and even articles like your own on the 'fifties feel' and the lack of it in the test version, were largely responsible for the game being rewritten in those last months.) I think that truthfully a game of that size should have been allowed something like two years to complete.... especially with all the promisses made. Not this rushed fifteen months with a team of people essentialy unfalmiliar with the FO universe that they were expected to recreate to a T. I think if nothing else this was a tremendous crash course in making a Fallout game for MicroForte which would be a shame to waste. Maybe I have too much hope for humanity... which is odd because I am one of the greatest cinics you will ever encounter.(this is not an invite for a contest on who is more jaded)

That was a wonderful article BTW.

//It is berry skarry faiting tha snake.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

>[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-01
>AT 07:39 AM (GMT)
>
>However there was a precedent for
>'something' like that in FO
>where you had to get
>the head set to protect
>your mind from psionic attacks
>by the master. (just
>to point out)

The Master is a special case though. The Master started when Richard Grey fell in to a vat of FEV and soaked in it for quite a while, possibly even years. The Master also "absorbed" various other life forms, including other people, in order to become what we see in Fallout.

The Beastlords were just exposed to a "special radiation". If there were a strain of FEV involved, it would have made a little more sense that they could talk to the animals. However, the setting of the Beastlords' base still wouldn't.

Just check out their base in Mission 7. It's a dungeon under a graveyard complete with electricity and switch operated cells. That hardly makes sense for mutated tribals to have a base like that.

>It is really plot continuity that
>is lacking where Items pop
>up which should not be
>there, like the missplaced guns,
>or any number of other
>items. Or when items
>dissapear for no good reason.
> Or where things happen
>for no good damned reason.
> All we are really
>asking for is more than
>a half assed explanation for
>what happens since this is
>science fiction after all, and
>many things can occur.
>However, they must have a
>'logical' explanation.... and for all
>the idiots out there, that
>doesn't mean real world logic
>but rather logic that fits
>within the reasonable parameters of
>the established setting.

I don't think it's possible to make a logical explanation for why FOT has things that the other Fallout games have and vice versa. At least, you can't make a DECENT logical explanation for why it's like that.

Maybe Combat Armor evaporates under the arid conditions of the Midwest? ;)

>Oh... and I still have hope
>for Tony if for no
>other reason than that he
>seems to have paid attention
>to what die hard Fans
>and critics of FO were
>saying at the time of
>the making of the game.

Well, if you'll read, he says they left a lot of the stuff he deemed "useless" in to appease the die hard Fallout fans and he considers that a mistake.

> (I think comments and
>even articles like your own
>on the 'fifties feel' and
>the lack of it in
>the test version, were largely
>responsible for the game being
>rewritten in those last months.)

Heh

I know that some of the tile artwork was redone after that article. :)

> I think that truthfully
>a game of that size
>should have been allowed something
>like two years to complete....
>especially with all the promisses
>made. Not this rushed
>fifteen months with a team
>of people essentialy unfalmiliar with
>the FO universe that they
>were expected to recreate to
>a T.

I agree. The very fact that the original time table for the game was 12 months suggests to me that Fallout Tactics was very much a throw away title. You can't expect a quality game to be made from scratch in 12 months. That's not what Interplay was interested in when they set out to have this game made.

Fallout took nearly three years to make. Jagged Alliance 2 took about three years as well. Those games are classics. The quality shows on both of them.

>I think
>if nothing else this was
>a tremendous crash course in
>making a Fallout game for
>MicroForte which would be a
>shame to waste. Maybe
>I have too much hope
>for humanity... which is odd
>because I am one of
>the greatest cinics you will
>ever encounter.(this is not an
>invite for a contest on
>who is more jaded)

It was a crash course, I agree. However, after reading what Mr. Oakden wrote, I think he missed the point in a major way.

For example, when people complain about skills being useless, Tony assumes that means people want those skills removed from the game. When people claim that pistols aren't as useful as they should be, Tony assumes that means pistols should be removed. That's missing the point entirely.

These things shouldn't be removed, they should be made more useful in the game.

>That was a wonderful article BTW.

Thanks, I enjoyed writing it. I also enjoyed all the response it got.
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

You're right. I looked at the postmortem again and I noticed what you noticed..... that being that allthough he seems to know well what is wrong with the game, he also thinks that all that is wrong should have been ripped out. I honestly do not have a clue what he was talking about when he said that Doctor was useless. It had a clear distinction from first aid in that it repaired cripled limbs and healed more hit points. more impotantly than that there were several quests which you could not complete if you did not have a good doctor skill.

I guess I am restating a lot of what you said but either way I will ramble on for a little. ;}

Anyways I guess in order to make FOT better(going back to the original topic) we would need to have given them more time and have Tony coached and made to understand that Fallout fans have already playtested (if you will) the shit out of the Fallout games. We (I guess not all but you can usually discern if the suggestion is valid by the way it is presented) know all of the weakneses of game balance and inventory content of all of the previous Fallout games. We allso know that 99% of what was introduced in the original Fallout is viable if worked on to balance it. So this 'tear it out' motto is bull to us.

I understand However that Tactics is a different type of game. This means that the focus is differrent and so some of the skills might not be used as much since if they retained all of the skills and made them usefull and added dialogue trees then we really would have ended up with FO3. Now taking that into consideration you can arrive at the conclusion that you might actually change the character creation and the overall gaming system in order to effectively represent the altered focus of the game. However if you were to do that and change the gaming sysetem used then you really have no business sticking the Fallout name into the game. That would not mean that the game should not have the same setting as FO, it just means that it would not be using the same name. With that it would probably be a better game since really a lot of problems seem to come from the fact that we as Fallout fans expect it to BE Fallout and the designers(the good hearted souls they were) tried to provide everything we asked for. It would also make our expectations be a little more realistic since not seeing the actual Fallout name we would not automatically want the next instalation in an RPG game when they were trying to make a tactical game. It has been done before many times; ex. with MechWarior and then Mech Comander.... both set in the same universe but obviously vastly different games with a different focus, both were hugely successful and nobody expected one to be the other. FOT would then be able to be set in the same universe but the only things we really would expect from it would be the same combat system(which was one of the fundamental basis for the game), and sticking to the original setting with the same types of guns, the overall look of the game graphics, and a story line that, even though would not need to be related, it would also not refute already established facts. However with the dilute focus of the game even those fundamental ideas suffered.

I do not think that a tactics game would necessairly need to be nolinear. I know JA2 was and that it was one of the greatest games ever, and I own it and love it, but not all games nedd to be like it in order to be good. I HATE clones. But when we saw the Fallout name in the title and learned that it was supposed to be linear we made a huge rucus because 'Afterall nonlinearity was a fundamental part of the greatness of Fallout.' It was quickly changed to shut us up and I do not think the game is really better for it, it is just more like the Fallout RPG's. I have played linear tactical games and they have been quite enjoyable.(Unfortunately I can not recall most of the names because I only borrowed them from my friend a long time ago) Commandos for example is a linear tactical game and I like it very much(I am not going to go into details but only overall),...... ofcourse I would like it better if somebody could tell me how in the hell I am supposed to turn off the electric fence in the fourth mission because I really can't(maybe it is a bug...but I digress).

Either way I am not going to write a dissertation on it here but I think you can see my point.

Taking all this into consideration I can see where Tony thinks that more things should have been ripped out. He wanted to make a tactical game based in the same setting as Fallout.... We wanted him to make another Fallout because that is what we saw in the name.


//It is berry skarry faiting tha snake.
 
I would change the all the recruits. Man, those wankers look like somebody just threw a bunch of stats/perks/skills together. Less recruits but more thought put into them. Wish I could create a whole squad instead of just the main character.

Red
 
RE: Good points, but some critiques:

>You're right. I looked at
>the postmortem again and I
>noticed what you noticed..... that
>being that allthough he seems
>to know well what is
>wrong with the game, he
>also thinks that all that
>is wrong should have been
>ripped out. I honestly
>do not have a clue
>what he was talking about
>when he said that Doctor
>was useless. It had
>a clear distinction from first
>aid in that it repaired
>cripled limbs and healed more
>hit points. more impotantly than
>that there were several quests
>which you could not complete
>if you did not have
>a good doctor skill.

Yes, that's what I think they should have done. Made alternative methods of doing certain things with the use of noncombat skills. After all, in real life, there's more than one way to solve a strategic objective with nonlethal tactics.

>Anyways I guess in order to
>make FOT better(going back to
>the original topic) we would
>need to have given them
>more time and have Tony
>coached and made to understand
>that Fallout fans have already
>playtested (if you will) the
>shit out of the Fallout
>games.

I'm not sure they would have listened. I think they thought that they should make a game were guns solve everything. They didn't even make an attempt at alternative means of doing anything.

It would have been nice if you could have used science skill to hack in to a computer and turn turrets on the bad guys, or repair a force field generator to trap bad guys, etc.

In fact, you could do similar things in Fallout and Fallout 2, so I'm not sure why they didn't allow these approaches to things in Fallout Tactics.

>We (I guess
>not all but you can
>usually discern if the suggestion
>is valid by the way
>it is presented) know all
>of the weakneses of game
>balance and inventory content of
>all of the previous Fallout
>games. We allso know
>that 99% of what was
>introduced in the original Fallout
>is viable if worked on
>to balance it. So
>this 'tear it out' motto
>is bull to us.

Very much bull. :)

The problem is, we're used to games with a great deal of depth. We're used to going where we please and doing what we can do with what we have and getting things done. There is none of that in Fallout Tactics.

>I understand However that Tactics is
>a different type of game.
> This means that the
>focus is differrent and so
>some of the skills might
>not be used as much
>since if they retained all
>of the skills and made
>them usefull and added dialogue
>trees then we really would
>have ended up with FO3.

Not really. After all, it's still a squad based game and most situations you are in are hostile. The missions and "quests" should just simply have a different focus than that of Fallout or Fallout 2.

> Now taking that into
>consideration you can arrive at
>the conclusion that you might
>actually change the character creation
>and the overall gaming system
>in order to effectively represent
>the altered focus of the
>game.

Why? The SPECIAL system of Fallout represents an individual well. The only problem is that Fallout Tactics does not. I know that's the point you are making, I'm just rewording it because I agree.

>However if you
>were to do that and
>change the gaming sysetem used
>then you really have no
>business sticking the Fallout name
>into the game. That
>would not mean that the
>game should not have the
>same setting as FO, it
>just means that it would
>not be using the same
>name.

Very much agreed with you.

The very phrase, "There's too much Fallout in Fallout Tactics" makes me question Tony's sanity.

>a tactical game. It
>has been done before many
>times; ex. with MechWarior and
>then Mech Comander.... both set
>in the same universe but
>obviously vastly different games with
>a different focus, both were
>hugely successful and nobody expected
>one to be the other.

That's because both are fairly solid games that remain true to each other. Fallout Tactics isn't very true to Fallout.

> FOT would then be
>able to be set in
>the same universe but the
>only things we really would
>expect from it would be
>the same combat system(which was
>one of the fundamental basis
>for the game), and sticking
>to the original setting with
>the same types of guns,
>the overall look of the
>game graphics, and a story
>line that, even though would
>not need to be related,
>it would also not refute
>already established facts. However
>with the dilute focus of
>the game even those fundamental
>ideas suffered.

That's kind of why Fallout Tactics plays out like a series of huge Fallout Random Encounters rather than a Fallout game. :)
 
I'd lower the number of random encounters a GREAT deal.
I mean, I'm playing with the patch, and I just finished Newton, where you have to save the Reaver leaders. From what is said in the game, I'd suppose the Reavers are near dead at that time.
On my way from Newton back to the nearest BOS-bunker I encountered more than 20 randoms, 13 of them included reavers.
Near dead, eh?
I put all of my SP into Outdoorsman just to be able to avoid those. It's just a pain...
 
First of all, my version would have had dialogue trees. They decided to squelch any notion of making this an RPG, and I think that was a mistake. Furthermore, if they had given the software the ability to do dialogue trees, then we could make our own adventures in true RPG fashion when the editor came out. That wouldn't have been the hardest thing they had to accomplish, and it would have gone a long way toward improving the potential of this title. They could also have put in game mechanics to allow one's own squad to talk to the commander. Think what the mod community could do with that.

Icewind Dale was advertised from the very beginning as a hack-and-slash game, yet it had dialogue trees. The world did react to what your character thinks and feels, because you could convey it through dialogue. I see no reason why they couldn't do this in a tactical game, except that they were determined to make it _merely_ a tactical game.

I have an entire rant on the ways that the title failed to live up to the Fallout name, and I'll post it as soon as it's a bit less rusty. I'm sure many posters here will agree with my points, having made them already themselves. For now, let's talk about the actual story.

It's a heavy-handed morality play. Good and evil are pretty clear-cut, even though it's clear early in the game that you are not working for the good guys. Although the Brotherhood of Steel are treated as possibly benevolent in the RPGs, their cabalistic nature made them suspect. They were, in effect, a futuristic Knights Templar. But instead of running with the Masonic themes in the game that focused on them, they waved their hands over that compelling aspect of the organization. But it is compelling. People are fascinated by Masonic cults, and the mysteries associated with them.

There are serious problems with the story. The plot is contrived to withhold information from the player, and the player knows it. If it's necessary to do so, it shouldn't be obvious or heavy handed, which it was. And they payoff should be worth jerking the player around, which it wasn't. The New Menace from the West was just robots. I had guessed it was cyborgs, but alas it was less interesting than that. And who didn't see the twist at the end coming? A story teller mustn't let the audience get so far ahead of the story.

Consistency with the Fallout universe as we know it is, of course, in shambles. Star Trek fans borrow an expression from theologists for such things. They say, "It's not cannon" and they don't count it when they construct the official history of the universe. I think we should follow this example, and treat the events of this game as taking place in a `what-if-iverse', and not in the same setting as the RPGs.

Oh, and I wouldn't have put so many suguaro cacti in the midwest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top