Fallout Series Discussion

[Da_BossMaN69]

Where are you people getting this from?
When did I every say it wasn't an RPG. The thing I find more laughable is that as an RPG it's combat should be clunky and paper/dice, when this company Bethesda, has done nothing but try to make its combat better.

I have faith in them that they will allow cover, why anyone has an aversion to this is beyond me. I'm almost sure you all at some point ran behind a wall or barrel to reload or use a stimpack.

I find it hard to believe everyone here simply charged in guns blazing. That may be while you guys find death claws hard.

Believe it or not you can have tighter borders, more realistic gunplay, faster aiming, and ADS and still keep RPG elements.

Stalker's done it, Metro 2033 to an extent did a good job, as did Mass effect and others.

[The SheoDovah]

Since when did RPGs have to have clunky and pen/paper dice based? Cover should be implemented but in a way so that it affects all gameplay styles instead of shooting. Such as stealth, sneak behind a burnt car and if you have the perk, you'll drag the raider over it then snap his neck. Or bashing their brains in from behind a low wall. However, if it's restricted to shooting only, it would seem like that is the focus and many people prefer to play melee or unarmed characters.

Also, Deathclaws are challenging regardless of what you do. Yes, if you are stupid enough to charge at them, guns blasing, you are going to die. But, melee characters often do that because they are built for it. Same with unarmed characters. That said, a perk from one of the DLCs turned them into a joke as it causes the shotgun to knock enemies back onto the floor.

I would love to see the ability to create our own armour. Such as wielding some stuff together to make a shoulder guard.(think of the armoured vault suit). Or make adjustments. I mean, give us an option to tear Power Armour apart and use parts of it for our unique armour but at a cost. Such as we get increased protection but we are slower. The increased protection would depend on what part you used. Such as using the torso would give you 10-20 points of protection and make you a bit slower. That said, i would like to see enemies in power armour be walking tanks and very hard to kill due to the nature of it. What's the point of being a walking tank if someone with a pistol can kill you?

[Kerr]

No but it's an FPS, lets not [&@%!] ourselves here, this universe has nowhere near the lore that TES has or the role playing options.

Here is where you suggested it wasn't an RPG. At least it looked that way. Maybe that isn't what you think but by your wording it is what it sounded like.

But yeah, I think they should improve combat in Fallout. At the same time combat shouldn't be essential. Stealth and talking things out should be viable. Not in every side quest, but for the main quest anyway. New Vegas already had ADS by the way.

[The SheoDovah]

Excalty. Some raider gangs should either give you a warning or try to hold you up which gives you a chance to resolve it peacefully. Or whip out a fatman and nuke them to the moon. Or depending on the reputation, they won't attack us out of fear as well as appearance. I mean, who attacks a heavily armed, power armoured person with a baseball bat? That won't even scratch it.

[DikaSmausha]

Where are you people getting this from?
When did I every say it wasn't an RPG. The thing I find more laughable is that as an RPG it's combat should be clunky and paper/dice, when this company Bethesda, has done nothing but try to make its combat better.

No one says that it should not be improved, but you are treating it as the main point of the game.

and still keep RPG elements... as did Mass effect

Just saying, where are they at?

[Da_BossMaN69]

Now this is the root of the problem.

Melee. Look I know it's a viable option, but really it's a dumb one, how many people play this game and use only melee, if that's what you wanted why not play an Elder Scrolls game.

The vast majority of players use firearms be it with lead or lasers. If you don't want such combat because it will interfere with melee characters or make it too hard to use it as a viable option (as it should) then I can't really sympathize with you.

And I'm not trying to be a dick, but it is frustrating when a minority group he's back the majority, I mean if such changes were made would anyone be truly upset that they can't take bullets to the face and still cleave off a heavily armored soldier with a rusty machete?

I mean it just made new Vegas so stupid that a mode used army could actually have difficulty with the equivalent of roided up warriors in football equipment.

I mean the conquistadors slaughtered the Indians mainly due to their steel and firearms, and that's when a gun had to reload in 5 minutes. It's more believable that mutants could exist over such a scenario as this.

And I know the excuse is well if ants can be 100x their size and breathe fire, then why can't ____. And really it's a bad argument. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far. Mutants can make sense on some level, if only because there is some basis for it in real life.

I mean even in TES, despite how crazy the setting and people might get there Yo when u got classis still some level of realism in the game, mainly through accurate portrayals of society and race

Edit: combat is the main point of the game, sure there are cool quests and story to give reason and compliment the combat, but without the game has nothing.

He'll most games have nothing without, If you can honestly tell me it could survive with out it, then you'd be on to something, but you guys know deep down its true.

There's a reason these games have been called ACTION RPG.

[The SheoDovah]

How is Melee a dumb option?

[Da_BossMaN69]

It's not utilized as much nor does it make much sense in a woe with advanced weaponry can a average human being to around with a pipe and Beat the [&@%!] out of heavily armed soldiers of a modern army.

There's a reason the samurai failed.

And I'm not saying get rid of it entirely, but simply adapt as other games have and make it so there's a separate melee button. Sure improv so instead of a Quick knife you can have a quick pipe or golf club, but to devote an entire form of combat to it is redundant.

If hand to hand was taken out of TES, then there is probably more people easily willing to get over unarmed and melee all together

[Br3admax]

I stopped reading once you said combat was the main point of an ES and Fallout game when the combat in the both is just awful. It's amazing how you seem to know the point more than even Bethesda does, because they have never used combat to sell their games and have always in fact, advocated for the exploration elements in them and the ability to shape a compelling character. Combat is not the point. People were actually really angry when hand to hand was removed, by the way. And the idea to turn Fallout into Call of Duty, is no offense, quit sickening. I'm actually nauseous from that.

[Velvet LeChance]

I'm for improvements to combat as long as these 'improvements' don't force the game to a) revolve around (lengthy) combat sequences and/or b) make one playstyle dominant over the rest.

Removing playstyles is such a catastrophically bad idea that I'm not even going to bother discussing it. I can only repeat that Fallout doesn't want to be your modern generic shooter.

Br3ad beat me to the word 'sickening'.

[The SheoDovah]

I disagree. Fallout is not realistic. It doesn't pretend to be and doesn't claim to be. To remove melee would be a bad idea because many people use it and it does make sense. Ammo is not something that is easy to make and tends to either be a bit challenging to find or will cost a fair amount of caps. Ceaser's Legion is a powerful enemy of the NCR and they took out a lot of NCR troops. I would say that for every 10 Legionaires that were killed, the NCR lost 20-30 due to how crap the NCR's training was. I mean, they just rushed out new recruits just to try to stop being overwhelmed and the NCR is as close as you can get to a modern army.

And Combat has never been the main focus of Fallout or TES as Br3ad said.

EDIT: Also, Skyrim recieved a lot of backlash due to unarmed being taken out. If they did that with Fallout, the fans would be royally [&@%!] and it could send the wrong message.

[Da_BossMaN69]

You got to take the stick out your ass. I've never once said anything in this thread as an insult we're talking about a video game for gods same why are you making it seem like I'm insulting you.

I'm not asking to turn it into CoD. The ONLY thing I really want is substantial cover that I can get behind a shoot over without having to come out from the thing just to fire.

I never once said turn it into an FPS, the fact that you're so upset over a simple piece of criticism is more "sickening".

Combat is the crux. Tell me then what it is Bethesda does to improve the other features? Story, the very thing you all constantly critique? The voice acting, considering I just rescued some poor miner from an undead telvanni Mage whose comments were less than inspired was a very poor performance. Exploration, the only thing I've heard you say is how much better NV was over 3, yet it's funny how much better designed its world was over the Mojave.

Ironic how the best feature of NV was the improved combat.

And lastly you are in the minority of minority's if you think you would actually still play this game if there was no form of combat at all.

If you can't even tell me that for such a change to occur and Beth not became bankrupt over such a change, then you've been in la la land, and if I coming off as a dick, perhaps I would be more civil if you were

[The SheoDovah]

But you did say it was an FPS when it is not. It's an action RPG. You seem to be a bit hostile as you told us to take the stick out of our asses.

The best feature of Fallout:NV was not the improved combat. It was various things. From the companion wheel to the mini games and so forth. As for the voice acting, that's a Bethesda trait. You did suggest that melee should be dropped which implied that it should become a shooter which it should not.

[Da_BossMaN69]

Dude I as talking to bread not you, shooting is a vital aspect to the game, why none of you will acknowledge that fact is beyond me, can you seriously tell me you'd play it without any form of combat

[Br3admax]

Yes, I like exploring more than combat. If you don't you really shouldn't be playing RPGs.

[Da_BossMaN69]

Oh right I forgot you had final on my tastes, and there's legions of people would disagree with you, and if exploring was your favorite aspect then you must of preferred 3 over NV.

believe it or not I and a majority of people who plays these games have a different taste than you, not very game has to be difficult to understand.

People played these games more so for combat than any Elder Scroll, and no one I'm referring to is a fallout 1 or 2 player, so you can be an elitist and call us the cancer of this community or whatever because we prefer a game where realistic, exciting and tactical combat can occur, which believe it or not can be delivered in an RPG.

Why you make it seem like such elements are incompatible with the other features in fallout, have you ever played any other shooters.

Even the model of "casual action junkie game" has added more role playing elements such as dramatically changing the story and added new maps you can explore based on your choices, I'dd dare say black ops 2 features the very thing you guys want, choices that actually impact the worlld

[Br3admax]

Don't ask questions if you don't want me to answer.

[Veck]

Seeing as you're the only person in this thread that's claiming to care about gunplay more than the roleplaying aspects in a roleplaying game the onus is on you to provide evidence that other people think like you. And while you're at it try and explain how exactly you plan on switching the game's focus entirely to guns while preserving the freedom of choice in combat.

[Velvet LeChance]

Late Response: I've already stated that implementing any 'feature' that causes one playstyle to become dominant is a seriously bad idea. Everything that you've put forward - from knifing (clubbing; piping) to 0.3057 second killtimes (exaggeration, I know) - makes your vision of Fallout seems scarily close to one of the many COD knock-offs we see on the market today and, not only that, undermines the very core principles that Fallout was built on; choice. (By creating a system in which firearms are the only (really) viable option Choice is going to suffer, basically.)

And I honestly would play without combat. First like 10 hours I played Fallout 3 I can only remember wandering around the wasteland; exploring. I ran from mostly every threat - I was [&@%!], really - but I did have some serious fun.

We prefer a game where realistic, exciting and tactical combat can occur, which believe it or not can be delivered in an RPG.

I really do think your in the wrong series. Excuse my uppity elite-ism but I've never met anyone - ever - that played (or wanted to play) Fallout for its amazing combat.

[Da_BossMaN69]

How bout th fact sales have gone up since Bethesda has improved combat from this game to turn based to real time, this trend has only gone up since the combat has been improved, simply look at the sales of skyrim compared to its predeccessors.

Second simply answer the question, would you ever play this game without combat, yes or no, honestly would you be excited to find out there would be no more combat to fallout 4

Neither do I play it for that, the combat is acceptable but the extra addition of RPG elements make it fun.

Jesus, what do you think I do simply kill everything in the game, do you think if I had no appreciation for the lore of these games I would actually debate you guys Ina forum dedicated to the lore, would I comment on the lore and debate with you guys?

So please get off your high horse, I'm not here to simply [&@%!] you off or troll you or whatever you think it is in here to do.

I simply said improve the combat, was I a little brash, yes but did it warrant the hate of three people over something so minor?

I'll apologize for any behavior you found hostile, but my views are my views and instead of simply being dramatic over them.

I do t mean take out melee combat all together but instead make it so its subservient to firearms based combat, you may disagree, but my only point is that I doubt many of you strictly use combat

[Br3admax]

We've already answered yes to your question, I guess you just don't like that answer. Also, saying that sales equals quality is wrong, IMO. CoD gets the best sales out of any game, but quality would never pass my lips when describing it.

[Da_BossMaN69]

Stop, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not good, second okay now you've answered, third sales shows that people became more interested in these games as combat became improved.

Quality was 't sacrificed here only upgraded along with the combat.

[The SheoDovah]

Just no. You can't compare COD to Fallout. One's a linear FPS and the other is an action RPG. Fallout NV features choices that impact the world and in true Fallout fashion, it's told during the ending slides what you have done because of the choices. Fallout is not popular because of it's combat. Nor is TES. Both are popular due to their lore and settings.

Shooting is not vital to Fallout. Fallout 3 is an average game and the franchise was dead before Bethesda brought it back due to Interplay being a bit crap at the time. Also, it was released on consoles which has a larger userbase then the PC so the sales was bound to pick up but not because of the combat. It did achieve cult status with Fallout 1 &2 and their combat is turned based.

But we are not hating you for suggesting that Fallout should turn into a shooter.

[Velvet LeChance]

Perceived improvements in combat wasn't the reason for Skyrims increased sales over its (arguably better) predecessors. Skyrim had a huge marketing budget (85 million dollars) and not only that had a loyal and large community which pushed the game for months before it's release. It played off its earlier success. Correlation does not imply causation, and all. There's a half-dozen other stronger factors you've simply ignored in your assumption.

And I get where you are trying to come from and have simply raised strong-strong doubts about whether your suggestions would benefit the series or not. Your entire arguments basically relies on your subjective reasoning that since certain additions worked in other games (primarily shooters) then they'll be cool in Fallout 4. Any counter-argument that have been offered have been mostly ignored and, really, until I see some of our points addressed - like how to focus more on gunplay with killing choice - I quite honestly don't see the point in continuing to repeat ourselves. I like when I can kill stuff fancier like in X doesn't convince me.

[Da_BossMaN69]

First, I find it funny how you criticize me for being a "brick-wall", when all I've ever said was to improve combat. Your only counterpoint was that I want to turn the entire franchise into a run of the mill shooter, or to simply go find another genre, as if somehow I'm too much of a simpleton/casual gamer to enjoy such refined game or whatever nonsense.When the only example I gave to how to improve it was cover, simplifying melee combat and allowing weapons to be better aimed/swiveled and pack a better punch.
Sure, they are many, but not incompatible with an RPG. My point with Call of Duty, and Crysis, was that they are examples of what I mean by a game with great in depth action and rpg elements.

Sure, yes obviously there are thousands of more options in fallout than either of those, but the point remains that its an example of games progressing to a level of depth only found in fallout.

The only thing I ask for is the best of both worlds, all of the options of exploration, quests, with the fast paced combat of today's shooters.

Why do you have an aversion to such a feature, or doubt it can be done, as I showed you before many games, even the most linear at times, have started to adapt or evolve to allow such exploration and customization, which is ultimately the heart of an rpg. First its guns, then story, soon with improved maps, and interaction, you may see a best of both worlds game. I mean Red dead and GTA have proven they can do so, while again I can't stress how much more options there are in Fallout compared to either, the point remains that it is not impossible to have good combat and sacrifice rpg elements.

The only thing you have said would lose out is melee combat, and I never said take the axe to it, and if I did it was a mistake to say.

What I would like to see is a more realistic approach to it at the least, It should not be possible to charge into an entrenched enemy armed with a high powered rifle and then beat his brains in with whatever agglomeration of scrap you wield. There must be a melee button added for sure, because again, you can say whatever you want, but the truth is more people probably use fire-arms/laser weaponry than melee weapons. Before you question my statistic, I simply ask if you were a betting man, would you put money on more using melee than ranged?

Second, with this acknowledgement there should be some form of quick melee implemented in the game.

Skyrim already had it with bows/cross bows, so I can't imagine it being too far off from fallout.