Fallout Series Discussion

[The SheoDovah]

COD does not have in depth RPG elements. It has a leveling system and perks but that's about it. Unsure about Crysis as i've not heard anything about it regarding RPG elements. Fast paced combat does not suit Fallout. I mean, what's the point of having enemies that are tough when you can kill them in mere seconds? Melee combat should not be simplified as many people enjoy playing as a melee character. If it was simplified, it would be pretty much worthless. As for the melee button, chances are you will spend most points on the stats that are related to shooting so you would do crap amounts of damage.

As i've said, Fallout has never tried to be or claimed to be realistic. It should not start being realistice. Otherwise, it would lose a part of it's charm. Such as over the top gore. Espically with the bloody mess perk. And reducing battles into a game of get behind cover or die within a few shots instead of being a human tank. Not everyone likes playing realistic games.

EDIT:RPGs are rarely built around their gameplay. Usually, their world, their lore, their characters are focused on due to the nature of RPGs. Most are 30-40 hours long and can last even longer then that so the gameplay does not need to be that important as the world and the story has to be interesting otherwise it'll get boring after a while. Fallout 1 and 2 had turned based combat which was slow but it achieved cult status. Final Fantasy is well, was turned based and it's one of the most popular RPG franchises in the history of gaming. It never focused on it's gameplay and instead, focused on it's lore, it's characters and the setting for you will be spending a lot of time playing it.

[Da_BossMaN69]

See now this is where our arguments should go, and thanks for the civility.

But on topic, I've read black ops 2 introduced many open world-sequence features, such as allowing you to take an active role in their future war. Like you can choose to do a mission that would liberate India or something and that would help you out on latter main story levels like extra firepower in one section or etc.

At least it's what I've been told and read happens, so in a way yes they've added such features.


And while I can agree on the world usually being the first built aspect of the game, you still seem to reject such combat, when I don't see why.

I mean let me phrase it like this, would you rather have to face 5 enemies who can soak up 5 clips of an assault rifle or 20 enemies who go down in those 5 clips.

To me I choose the latter as its more realistic and better suits a shooter.

It's just silly that the guy in football gear can survive round of round from a high powered rifle.

I know you and I have our differences on melee, but again I Ask how often do you really find yourself or others using it really?

[philfredobob]

Fast paced combat does not suit Fallout.

I don't understand this part. what's wrong with having fast paced combat, and why doesn't it suit Fallout? Fast paced doesn't mean realistic.

I'm not agreeing with the things DaBossman said, but I have to say that I wouldn't mind better combat, in a lot of situations. sure we can sit back and say ''RPGs aren't about the combat''. but I'm a person who enjoys it when gameplay and story go hand in hand. you shouldn't have one be good and one be bad. you should definitely work on improving the combat. now the problem here is ''Improved Combat'' is different to each person.

I for one, don't want the game to go down the ''realistic shooter'' path. but I wouldn't mind them adding and fixing a lot of things.

[The SheoDovah]

But COD is not an RPG. Fallout is and the two should not be compared. I rather face 5 diffculty enemies that take a lot of ammo to kill then kill 20 enemies with 5 clips as i do like a challenge. You've not said if the 5 enemies are supposed to be hard. Same with 20. Plus, it doesn't take 5 clips from an assault rifle to kill 5 enemies if you've invested in the shooting stats. As i've said many times, Fallout is not a shooter. It's an action RPG with varied gameplay styles. It is already possible to take 20 enemies down with 5 clips. I'm not against having improved gameplay but i am against having the shooting aspect be the primary focus of it as Fallout is one of those games that lets players play it any way they want it to.

As for Melee, i've used it a fair amount of times and it is challenging but if the character is built properly, not even deathclaws can stand up to you. And it's very pleasing to see the courier take on deathclaws with a supersledge hammer.(I've forgotten what it's called). And makes the PC seems like a badass. Shooting on the other hand, it's enjoyable but doesn't have the same effect as beating a supermutant to death with a pipe. I would like to see Melee get improved as well as unarmed.

[Velvet LeChance]

I like playing Melee.

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 ...

I am not against improving combat. I am however against implementing game mechanics that would limit choice (i.e "simplifying melee combat") and make one form of gameplay completely dominant over the others; of which you additions - or detractions, perhaps; I would certainly call them such - would definitely entail. I've stated that I know where you're coming from with your arguments - the mind set, that is - and am completely against it. I think what you completely fail to realise is that Fallout never was, currently isn't, and from what I've garnered never wants to be anything like "today's shooters"; of which inhibit a completely different genre (despite the cut-down on general railroady-ness). However, despite my utter rejection of your suggestions based on principles, I will offer up some more criticisms of each to appear less brickwall-y. Civilly, of course (though I think we are at odds to its definition).

The Cover System: This seems to work okay in Real-Time shooters (3rd & 1st). Problem: Fallout is not a Real-Time shooter. It certainly contains elements and, admittedly, you could easily play it as one, but at the end of the day it has always attempted to replicate turn-based combat (see: VATs). The addition of Cover alongside VATs in the vanilla game would make be ridiculously easy to exploit. Think about it, like. Exclude VATs - though, unlike many, I'm actually for the systems continuation; with a few tweaks, of course - and I would (maybe) be for the inclusion of more cover (but never a full Cover System) and slightly better enemy AI for the enemy to also take advantage. This however doesn't extend to a system which also includes faster kill times. I, like Veck and I'm sure others, find crouching, facing a rock; barricade; tree; body; whatever, only to pop up and attempt a shoot at the enemy before he can spray me down in under two seconds exceedingly boring. Leave that to Cod and it's ilk. (I'd mention choice and certain playstyles being severely weakened but I assume you know that already.)

Faster, more "realistic", killtimes: This is something I would never support being implemented. Fallout, as stated, doesn't make any attempt to replicate real-life. But it goes beyond my shamelessly conservative attitude towards the series. It is important to understand that when beefing up weaponry you will have to similarly beef up everything in the game. Again; think. The main focus of the game is exploration but with half the games enemies one-shoting you every time you step foot outside a settlement it'd quickly become survival (see: Forced Powergaming.) Not only would every play style that involves getting up close with the enemy be completely impossible to play until late stages of the game (and even then I'm doubtful) but dozens - and I really do mean dozens - of roleplay options would be restricted, or, at the very least, extremely difficult to play. That's not to mention how frustrating exploration would become; quicksaving every minute to make sure you can continue after getting sprayed down/one-shotted.

There's mods that add this "improvement" to gameplay, however. The Construction Kit was added so the game wouldn't be diluted by the demands of minorities.

Stab (Pipe; Club; Whatever) button: I'm against melee being taken out or made redundant. I shouldn't need to elaborate, really.

[Kerr]

An option to hit somebody with the butt of your gun or pistol whip them wouldn't necessarily make melee redundant. Hitting somebody with your gun would be weaker than using a fire axe or something.

You end up using cover in some way in most games that have guns. You don't necessarily need a system like in Gear of War or Uncharted. You just need to be smart enough to hide behind something so you don't get shot. I don't dislike that by that way. AI being smarter wouldn't be a bad thing either.

[The SheoDovah]

But it should only be effective against humans and weak creatures. As I doubt supermutants would be affected by a pistol whip. And doing that to a deathclaw would just [&@%!] it off.

[DikaSmausha]

I think it needs to be said, no one is against improving combat.

[Da_BossMaN69]

Yeah I'll comment later on you guys suggestions right now ill just ask you revisit this post as Ill edit it to give some depth to my retort.

That being said however I repact your opinions and just hoped you know I don't want to simply turn this is game series into some call of duty offshoot

[DikaSmausha]

I know you don't, everyone was just trying to counter argue what you said. I don't agree that Fallout is mostly about combat, but that isn't my opinion. I just don't think combat is the most important part of a good RPG.

[all_freed]

Anyone else felt that most of the locations in NV were brief compared to 3?

[Kerr]

Not really. Do you mean in length to explore? Because it varied in length in Fallout 3 too. Some places were small, other places were big.

[all_freed]

Yeah I should replay 3 first; it's been a long time... but sometimes I get sad when I visit the Ivapah areas and El Dorado areas... they're so big and so empty. Don't really remember 3 having areas like those. Rockopolis was the smallest area I can remember. But I'm probably idolizing 3 more than it deserves.

Also it seems that Gum drops and cherry bombs are rare? I've only found enough cherries to make 2 bottlecap mines and enough gum drops to make 5 mushroom clouds... and they aren't even overpowered! Maybe a merchant restocks them but I've yet to find one who does.

[Will Zurmacht]

Anyone else felt that most of the locations in NV were brief compared to 3?

That was my initial impression, too. So many shacks... I chalked it up to a smaller development team and budget compared to FO3. Over time though, I realized that there are quite a few extensive interior areas to explore, they're just very spread out and weighted towards the later parts of the game. A typical NV path has the character make the "big U" south from Goodsprings up through Nipton and Boulder City to New Vegas. That route is mostly shacks, deserts, and deserted towns. Very empty compared to the typical FO3 path, which goes through bustling Megaton directly into high-density, high-action downtown DC.

[philfredobob]

Anyone else felt that most of the locations in NV were brief compared to 3?

I wouldn't say the locations were brief, it's just that there was less of them which could explored. the locations you could explore were fine, but there are far too many of those random empty shacks or waste dumps, and some of them are monuments or old factories that have no interior zone. I didn't think they really deserved to be their own location a lot of the time, but at the very least they gave you a new fast travel point.

another thing though, there are some unmarked locations in NV that offer good times. like the Deathclaw Promontory.

[deathm00n]

Anyone else felt that most of the locations in NV were brief compared to 3?

I surely did. Let me put like this: Fallout 3 buildings felt like dungeons in a conventional RPG, lots of hidden things, multiple floors. There was even a major "dungeon", the subway.

New Vegas had buildings you could enter and it was hard to find any of them you would spend half an hour inside.

This is one of the things that made me like more 3 than NV

[Da_BossMaN69]

This is one of the things 3 did better than NV the world itself was better. The capitol was more interesting to roam around than the mojave.

I mean you had only 5 major areas in the entire desert of interest: Fortification Hill, the strip, Hoover Dam, Black Mt. And NCRCF, no other place was of real interest.

Nor was there any real variation in them, I mean D.C. Was the better city compared to New Vegas. The only real enemy there were the Fiends where as 3 had all sorts of opponents to fight.

While yes NV's titular city had a few more interesting quests than dc, ultimately the actual area itself was uninspired and bland.
D.C. Was much better built having its own unique architecture and being nearly 2x the size of Vegas including its outskirts.

On top of that Obsidian did jack in terms of shout outs to actual vegas landmarks and areas. At least Beth did their homework, I can not tell you how many times Ive met some one from dc and known the area theyre talking about based on the game alone

. I know the geography of the city somewhat better than most due to this game alone because while yes obviously the city itself is 2x the size of the entire fallout map if not more, I have been able to impress natives with a minor understanding of locations within their city

[The SheoDovah]

Fallout 3 managed to get the atmosphere right despite it protraying the world as if the nukes had just hit a decade or two ago instead of 200 years. But The Mojave Wasteland was unique and interesting as the nukes didn't have that much affect on it thanks to Mr House. Instead, crime and creatures warped it into a dangerous land to live in untill some form of order was created. But if i remember correctly, most of F3's location had that samey feel to it and just felt empty at times. A lot of locations should have had quests in it, which they didn't.

[philfredobob]

I thought the Strip in New Vegas was probably the worst place in the entire game. as soon as I got there, I couldn't wait to get back out again and escape into the desert. for all the build-up the place had, the reality was disappointing.

Nor was there any real variation in them, I mean D.C. Was the better city compared to New Vegas. The only real enemy there were the Fiends where as 3 had all sorts of opponents to fight.

If you think about it, the only enemies in DC were the Super Mutants.

While New Vegas definitely had more quests in-game, I prefer the fewer quests that Fallout 3 had. not saying I dislike having lots of quests, just that I enjoyed the Fallout 3 ones a lot more.
and if anything, I'd say it was the Mojave that felt empty. I use to find things all over the place in the Capital Wasteland, old skeletons, crashed trucks, hideouts, all sorts of things where each one tells a story just by how it looks.

Fallout 3 has a lot of Unmarked quests, some of which are just as big as marked quests.

[The SheoDovah]

I agree that the mojave felt a bit empty. Unlike previous settings in Fallout, it barely got touched by the nukes and should have had a lot of random encounters and generally make it feel like it's full of life as that is what the atmosphere tries to aim for. The strip should have been larger and longer. It should have had at least 5 casinos that were actually big inside instead of two floors. It also should have not had the gate as it makes no sense. Why have a gate in the strip when you have a gate outside of which is guarded by robots that will gun down anyone who tries to enter it without passing the credit check or other stuff.

[all_freed]

I'm so embarassed that I didn't watch the Lanius fan film on release day. It's an accurate depiction of his transformation to Legate. Here's the link for anyone else who missed it. Edit: I believe the voice is the same one from the game.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WCrM1_7wnDU

Also if anyone hasn't watched Fallout Red Star fan film, it can be found on machinima prime (watch the skyrim fan film too while you're at it).

[Kerr]

The original Nuka Break and Nuka Break series are also worth watching. Not great, but pretty decent. I'm assuming Red Star will tie into whenever they release series 2. Which will feature Tim Cain and Chris Avellone.

[DikaSmausha]

I thought the Strip in New Vegas was probably the worst place in the entire game. as soon as I got there, I couldn't wait to get back out again and escape into the desert. for all the build-up the place had, the reality was disappointing.

I think what made it bad is the fact that it wasn't one conjoining area.
Lanius film wasn't bad. But the combat was so terrible, mostly Lanius himself.

[Kerr]

The reason it was split in two was for loading on consoles. Same reason Freeside was split in two and also not part of the rest of the wasteland.

[philfredobob]

I have no problem with it being two areas, I don't care about that. it's just that the location is not interesting, I don't like hanging about it or exploring it.