PCGamer Fallout 3 Predictions

[Thor Kaufman]

I don't like FPS/RPG mixes, it's ok though if only special abilities are affected and one just needs to fulfill a few objectives to affect some skills. XIII had that quite well done. If you found documents your char remembered his former special skills. But you could just go on a killing spree and your missions without finding any documents.

If the whole thing revolves around xp grinding, you get travesties like NOLF2 or even worse games.

[MRhappy]

Their usage depends on player's intelligence more than on char's abilities.

Honestly, you don't have to be that smart to say "Dang, I better duck behind some cover now." or " man, this would be a real good time to tell my friends to cover my back." Plus, having a tactics skill or something where you are limited in the beginning might annoy some (tho I think it could be interesting, not everybody wants to play a gunslinger). From what I can see, player intelligence factoring into RPGs has never really been a huge focus, but whether or not this is a good thing is not relevant.


A lot of people say don't worry about the combat, its not what made FO great, and I would agree. But I dont think there is one thing that made Fallout great, it was a sum of its parts, and TB combat has a sizeable place there. rilomo or whoever, I don't think we are going to convince anybody to chnage anything at this point, that isnt really the idea. By now, it is what it is. gNarrr

Unlike popular belief, there's still so much to improve in the field of turn-based, isometric combat.

Definately. I will never understand everybody who claims that real time is some sort of progression from turn based, I mean, WFTFF. Even if they did do something turn based, bethesda arent ones to do anything all that new these days. But still there are so many great possibliies within the realm of a turn based or pseudo-turnbased system, it is a real shame nobody is willing to do experiment with it.


As for a first person turnbased system, I'd much rather have it than no tb at all. It actually could be pretty interesting I'm thinking something like http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1599/tbgi0.png (pretty quick paint shop, but you get the idea. This would be the perspective for your turn, maybe there could be some sort of cinematic camera swing when you are attacked just for giggles).

[Dreadnought]

It'd be cool if it COULD (on choice) switch to FP view while shooting a minigun or so... but it should stay an option, and not become mandatory.

[Thor Kaufman]

and watch the body parts fly away in slowmotion :matrix:

Next is a RL simulator with real flesh from the butcher's

[VasikkA]

You should remember that Deus Ex is an FPS. An FPS with a skill system and multiple endings. A very good FPS, nevertheless. The whole design viewpoint of combat was different from had they made an RPG. Compared with other FPS's that were released at that time, the combat was somewhat average. Luckily, the original story, setting and design innovations made the game a classic. It simply felt different from the rest.

This would be the perspective for your turn, maybe there could be some sort of cinematic camera swing when you are attacked just for giggles).

An interesting idea. I guess you could have an option to add cinematic effects in turn-based combat when the outcome is presented(i.e. when the character is not in your control). The camera could swing or zoom or follow the hail of bullets from your minigun into the ghoul's groin for those gory critical hits. Just playing around with this idea.

[Tarnopol]

And real-time reflex based gameplay does NOT require a player's abilities?

What the hell is this? Fallout always has had tactical combat and it has been one of its great features, why is this even a point of argument?

RT combat uses player's agility and isn't a good Fallout option at all,
because it's replacing the perks and skills system partially, bringing in a misplaced action element.
I fear, we'll get RT in Fallout III. And I don't want that.

FOT has more tactics features, but isn't an RPG.
Fallout and Fallout 2 use the traditional RPG-style (i.e. you can't lie or cover, you have to stand in combat etc ). So combat is depending on char's abilities here more than FOT combat does.

[Dreadnought]

traditional RPG-style (i.e. you can't lie or cover, you have to stand in combat etc )

I didn't fency that. I often thought that it'd be pretty dope to go at least in cover behind boxes.

Getting up 1 AP.

Shooting.

Getting down 1 AP.

[AnneGwish]

The only reason I even mention FP or third person, is because this is Bethesda we're dealing with. I'm not sure if they can even comprehend what isometric means, let alone implement it so, I've pretty much given up trying to fight for it on that end, especially since it seems the console is going to be the ultimate decision maker.

By this point all I'm hoping for is that what they do decide to give is as small a lump of shit as possible, and offering ways to make it at least somewhat more pleasant an experience than their last offering.

[Tarnopol]

I didn't fency that. I often thought that it'd be pretty dope to go at least in cover behind boxes.
Getting up 1 AP.
Shooting.
Getting down 1 AP.

And you'll get FOT-combat.
In FOT combat works like :
1) getting up
2) shoot
3) getting down
4) wait for next turn
5) goto 1)

And that's boring after a while, especially if you have to face strong enemies. Ok, I'm not a FOT fan - but I was forced to fight in FOT in this way. I don't think that such kind of combat is more fun than Fallout combat.

[Thor Kaufman]

The fun part about Fallout combat is that you can shoot whoever you want, including children, plus you can select which bodypart and get the victim's corresponding reactions, maybe even criticals. Also, most fights aren't very challenging

[Tarnopol]

Also, most fights aren't very challenging

That's right. Imo a few really challenging fights are enough - Fallout has many other qualities and can't be reduced to combat only. It's poor RPG style to set the focus too much on combat, because that's the best way to hack&slash.
But I don't understand why you want to shoot children just for fun. The ingame childs are part of the scenery - but not designed as enemies in the first line.

[VasikkA]

It's poor RPG style to set the focus too much on combat, because that's the best way to hack&slash.

Indeed, combat shouldn't exist only to increase the total time spent on playing the game. I'd much rather see meaningful, challenging combat instead of just wasting your bullets on critters for the thousandth time (i.e. quality, not quantity). Ususally in RPGs, shorter battles are compensated with MORE combat, which can get frustrating and repetitive after a short while. Preferably, the combat option should be completely optional throughout the game.

But I don't understand why you want to shoot children just for fun. The ingame childs are part of the scenery - but not designed as enemies in the first line.

Maybe because it's possible?

[jetbaby]

But I don't understand why you want to shoot children just for fun. The ingame childs are part of the scenery - but not designed as enemies in the first line.

Tell that to Marcus. That fucker opened combat in the middle of reno to throw a flare (and crit) a child in the groin.

[Smiley]

There a thing I've been wondering about.

Regarding FO combat, the isometric view and AP was in my opinion very "power-played".. step out, shoot, step back. This was a valid tactic´many places, and could save you a couple of shots..

I always thought it was ridiculous not to include an ability to at least try to take a shot when you peeked around the corner/took a big step out.

These small exploits are a big part of FO combat, and I think a lot of people will miss that, because it eliminated at least a part of skill, and let you focus on other things.

Which would you preffer? Small quirks to exploit or not?

[Splatterpope]

JA2 combat system. That be what I'd like.

[Dogmeatlives]

If Fallout 3 is turn-based I will post a picture of my nuts on this or any other forum.

Wasn't KOTOR turn-based? Call me an idiot but I didn't mind that combat system. That could actually work pretty well. Keeping KOTOR's combat and third-person view and adding Fallout's general awesomeness. That could work and KOTOR sold very well. Then again it was a Star Wars title.

[Dreadnought]

Fallout was all about being able to smoke cones and masturbate while being in combat.

A non TB FO3 would be like... http://albinolifeb.ytmnd.com/

[DaC-Sniper]

In these gaming times of real time FPS with super graphics, Bethesda could be pretty innovative by offering turnbased combat with ISO view or else and super graphics. Also called market gap.

[Tarnopol]

If Fallout 3 is turn-based I will post a picture of my nuts on this or any other forum.

Wasn't KOTOR turn-based? Call me an idiot but I didn't mind that combat system. That could actually work pretty well. Keeping KOTOR's combat and third-person view and adding Fallout's general awesomeness. That could work and KOTOR sold very well. Then again it was a Star Wars title.

No. KotoR has continuous turnbase combat with pause function. Nearly same as RT/P. The difference is that combat is handled in turns here correctly, not as a stream like in RT/P, and you can stop the game after every completed turn only.

[Killzig]

Okay. Time for me to get yelled at. I'm just tired enough of hearing the 'Oblivion with guns' reference that I figured I'd say something. Anyone remember the "rpg" that Bethesda made after Morrowind and before Oblivion. Originally it went by the name Sea Dogs. Then, some movie producers decided to buy it and change the name to "Pirates of the Carribean" before it was finished so that they could package it and send it out before it was too long after the movie had come out to make sense.

Sea Dogs and Sea Dogs 2 (POTC) were both developed by Akella making everything else you posted absolutely worthless.

Blogger sounds like the kind of ape that stood in line for tickets to Wild Hogs while Zodiac played to empty seats. DIAF.