When/ How Did MZ Imply Aliens Started the Great War?

[sigma1932]

So just how do you kill of deathclaws/SM Behemoths at lvl 1 with starter gear?

This pretty much sums it up:

Lots of ammo, abusing their poor AI, insta-healing meds, VATS abuse.

And if we exclude deathclaws you can do the same in NV.. So is NV also bad?

I...don't think you can do it, at least not so easily thanks to the reintegration of DT, the nerfing of VATS and meds that aren't insta-healing.

Aside from all that, as far as the quality of NV goes, the quest/story-related content design and general foundation of RPG-mechanics is a signficiantly improved vs. FO3's, but overall it's still lacking and only "half-fixed" (which I chalk up to a very short 18-month development schedule allowing only so much to be done). I really, really wanted to love NV, but I find it hard to ignore the glaring flaws that were carried over from FO3.

Also i was under the opinion that whether the game is good or not is based on each person, how they enjoy it. Some hate it, some enjoy it for what it is. Sorry i was wrong.

You are confusing "personal enjoyment" with "quality", a way too common mistake. A looooot of people seem to think "I like this xxx therefore is good".

Great way to put it... I'll have to keep that in mind.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

The AI is still bad and stims heals the same unless you play harcore mode wich most of us do but still. It is a mode not "normal" gameplay.

"Hardcore mode" should be considered the normal mode, and "normal mode" should be labelled "easy mode". Strength, Endurance, Medicine
and Barter become dump stats/skills otherwise, not to mention a few Perks that are useful only with the "limitations" of Hardcore mode in mind.

And no emey besides besides some robots deathclaws and gigant radscorpions have any super high armor and you can avoid them all so that is not really a big difference.

Most mid-level humanoid enemies have armors with 5-10DT, if not more. Starting gear with low weapon skiils barely scratch them, so you have to rely exculsively on Criticals (good Luck with that). You go against the Legion? Enjoy ambushes with hi-level legionaries with 7~23DT armors, armed with 12.7SMGs, Grenade Launchers, Super Sledges and the like.

 

[SnapSlav]

"Hardcore mode" should be considered the normal mode, and "normal mode" should be labelled "easy mode".

One of the mods I'd like to see for FONV (assuming it hasn't been made yet) is changing around that last pop-up you get while exiting Mitchell's house. Instead of asking me if I want to play on Hardcore mode, then explain the details of what that "change" would entail, alter it to ask me if I want to play on Easymode, and explain what THAT would entail.

Like: "Playing on Easymode means that your companions cannot die, your character will not need to eat, sleep, or drink, and resting will instantly heal you fully. All meds will work instantly and stimpacks can be used in place of doctors bags.

Would you like to play on Easymode?
Yes (Not Recommended)
No"

 

[X12]

"Hardcore mode" should be considered the normal mode, and "normal mode" should be labelled "easy mode".

One of the mods I'd like to see for FONV (assuming it hasn't been made yet) is changing around that last pop-up you get while exiting Mitchell's house. Instead of asking me if I want to play on Hardcore mode, then explain the details of what that "change" would entail, alter it to ask me if I want to play on Easymode, and explain what THAT would entail.

Like: "Playing on Easymode means that your companions cannot die, your character will not need to eat, sleep, or drink, and resting will instantly heal you fully. All meds will work instantly and stimpacks can be used in place of doctors bags.

Would you like to play on Easymode?
Yes (Not Recommended)
No"

"Easy Mode" (or what i like to call "Casual Mode" because its not "easy" all the time) is necessary because sometimes people WANT to play casually. The solution is to make the first person combat actually hard on harder difficulties, and make the enemies smarter in higher difficulties rather than bullet spongier and harder hitting. Like, make human enemies not announce themselves and make tactical descisons, etc.

 

[SnapSlav]

No, it's not "necessary" whatsoever. It's merely implemented to appease a wider audience, which has always been a DETRIMENT to games, not a boon. Chess does not need a separate, easier set of rules for players who want to play it "casually". It's a tough game that is intended to rape you if you go up against a pro and you are not their equal. "Don't bother, you can't do it" is not a bad thing. It's roadblocks like that which INSPIRE us to get better. Being unable to kill that first Deathclaw isn't supposed to be met with "This is unfair, they should make that thing easier to kill" but rather "I guess I need to get tougher!" You're going the wrong direction if you side with easymode logic. It's a bad idea, and was always a bad idea, meant to appease masses, not produce a better product.

 

[woo1108]

for casual, why don't they play more wholesome and casual game then unwholesome and brutal games like Fallout?

 

[Makta]

for casual, why don't they play more wholesome and casual game then unwholesome and brutal games like Fallout?

I would not call any Fallout game brutal.. Unless we are talking by how bad POS is but that is another story

 

[woo1108]

Fallout series are always brutal and unwholesome.
look at the blood!
look at the body!
look at the brutally destroyed remains!!
how unwholesome

 

[X12]

No, it's not "necessary" whatsoever. It's merely implemented to appease a wider audience, which has always been a DETRIMENT to games, not a boon. Chess does not need a separate, easier set of rules for players who want to play it "casually". It's a tough game that is intended to rape you if you go up against a pro and you are not their equal. "Don't bother, you can't do it" is not a bad thing. It's roadblocks like that which INSPIRE us to get better. Being unable to kill that first Deathclaw isn't supposed to be met with "This is unfair, they should make that thing easier to kill" but rather "I guess I need to get tougher!" You're going the wrong direction if you side with easymode logic. It's a bad idea, and was always a bad idea, meant to appease masses, not produce a better product.

Whats wrong with more options? I like being able to change the difficulty. "This is too hard" so i lower it down. "This is too easy" so i raise it up. Do you know how many people would be outraged if, lets say, 343 says "Ok, we are gonna make Legendary the default difficulty for all future Halos and Heroic, Normal, and Easy will no longer be available". People would be PISSED. Now, if your saying the game should be built around Hardcore mode and Hardcore mode be marketed as "The way to play Fallout" while still giving players the option to play casual when they want to would be a good idea. And still have challenging combat in casual mode, of course. I want casual mode, not easy mode. Casual to me means worrying about less stuff (not having to worry about ammo weight and stimpack weight) while still having challenging enemies.

 

[Akratus]

Because no game should be designed as both a casual exploration game and a hard post apocalyptic combat focused rpg.

Focus and coherency makes quality, and that lies in maintaining the relative scope and the tightness of the design.

Making a game for everybody please nobody. But making a game for people of whom you know what they like, you can achieve great quality.

 

[SnapSlav]

I never said the issue was with "more options". I said efforts taken SPECIFICALLY for generalizing a title "for a broader audience" is a bad thing, and this includes focusing on so-called "Easymodes". If you download DotA2 and play some Coop Bot matches to get accustomed to the game before playing real people, the default AI difficulty will be set to what they label "Hard" (which was changed, in name only, from "Normal" since it was the second highest difficulty), but you still have the option to lower the difficulty. Of course, you SHOULD master the default if you had any hope of making it very far. Centering the game around the easiest possible solution is, however, a problem. Ninja Gaiden also did it right in ALLOWING players to play on an easy difficulty, called "Ninja Dog", but it wasn't set by default. In fact, you couldn't select it AT ALL; you had to fail over and over again before it presented you with the option. The result of playing on Ninja Dog was that upon beating the game, harder difficulties weren't unlocked, and you wouldn't have your karma recorded (their version of high score). It was an easier version of the game, but the game didn't center around being the easiest version of itself.

Placing all the focus on ease for the sake of audience size USUALLY translates to easymode, but it does other things, too, like "Every game's a shooter" or "Every shooter is just another COD clone", or "Every game is boring dusty brown or gunmetal grey in setting" etc. It's ALL bad, because they're follow-the-leader orders from Publishers to Developers for attempt to copy the sales of other games. They're not Developers trying to make the games they want. If Developers want to do whatever they want for their core audience, and that includes many difficulties, that's fine. But that ISN'T what I was addressing. Saying "hardcore fans" like it's a taboo thing doesn't make it one. "Hardcore fans" are just the INTENDED audience of a game, not the general audience that'll pick up anything to see what it is, then discard it when they find out it's not for them.

 

[X12]

I never said the issue was with "more options". I said efforts taken SPECIFICALLY for generalizing a title "for a broader audience" is a bad thing, and this includes focusing on so-called "Easymodes". If you download DotA2 and play some Coop Bot matches to get accustomed to the game before playing real people, the default AI difficulty will be set to what they label "Hard" (which was changed, in name only, from "Normal" since it was the second highest difficulty), but you still have the option to lower the difficulty. Of course, you SHOULD master the default if you had any hope of making it very far. Centering the game around the easiest possible solution is, however, a problem. Ninja Gaiden also did it right in ALLOWING players to play on an easy difficulty, called "Ninja Dog", but it wasn't set by default. In fact, you couldn't select it AT ALL; you had to fail over and over again before it presented you with the option. The result of playing on Ninja Dog was that upon beating the game, harder difficulties weren't unlocked, and you wouldn't have your karma recorded (their version of high score). It was an easier version of the game, but the game didn't center around being the easiest version of itself.

Placing all the focus on ease for the sake of audience size USUALLY translates to easymode, but it does other things, too, like "Every game's a shooter" or "Every shooter is just another COD clone", or "Every game is boring dusty brown or gunmetal grey in setting" etc. It's ALL bad, because they're follow-the-leader orders from Publishers to Developers for attempt to copy the sales of other games. They're not Developers trying to make the games they want. If Developers want to do whatever they want for their core audience, and that includes many difficulties, that's fine. But that ISN'T what I was addressing. Saying "hardcore fans" like it's a taboo thing doesn't make it one. "Hardcore fans" are just the INTENDED audience of a game, not the general audience that'll pick up anything to see what it is, then discard it when they find out it's not for them.

Like I said, center the game around Hardcore mode, market it as "the way to play Fallout" while still having the OPTION of casual mode. i was agreeing with you. I dont want it centered around the easiest option, but i still want a casual option.

 

[SnapSlav]

....did you read my post?

I got that you were largely agreeing with my original point, but that's irrelevant to how I address a point. I target the parts I DON'T agree with, whatever the reason may be, regardless of how much of the post I side with.

Stop making every response somehow about you because they weren't obvious enough in the manner you're accustomed to or prefer. I don't have to address the fact that I acknowledge you agreeing with me if that isn't my standard modus operandi, and it isn't.

People browsing through threads without reading all of the posts and just making generic comments is a thing, sure. But you're preaching to the choir about that upset if you think I didn't read the post above mine (which I even ADDRESSED, so of course I read it). Maybe you should read mine and understand its purpose instead of assuming it didn't read yours.