One man's opinion.

Som Guy · Post by **Som Guy** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:53 am

I'm just saying in my personal opinion that the lack of a time limit and the ability to play after the end of the game is what made me like fallout 2 more than i did fallout.

boywoos · Post by **boywoos** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:47 am

A famous John McEnroe quote springs to mind when reading this...

Som Guy · Post by **Som Guy** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:56 am

And that would be?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 8:00 am

Fair enough. My point is that a lack of a time limit destroys the sense of urgency in the game, and makes it feel unfocused. The first time I played Fallout, I did the best I could to get that waterchip as soon as possible. In my mind, it was absolutely imperitive. The first time I played FO2, I took a long break in the middle of the game because I got bored with all of the pointless little quests. In my opinion, the overal experience of FO2 suffered simply because the game lacked any sense of purpose that a time limit would have provided.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 6:24 pm

Doyle wrote:Fair enough. My point is that a lack of a time limit destroys the sense of urgency in the game, and makes it feel unfocused. The first time I played Fallout, I did the best I could to get that waterchip as soon as possible. In my mind, it was absolutely imperitive. The first time I played FO2, I took a long break in the middle of the game because I got bored with all of the pointless little quests. In my opinion, the overal experience of FO2 suffered simply because the game lacked any sense of purpose that a time limit would have provided.

That's what's been refered to as the, "I have to save my village, so why the hell am I searching this sewer for some guy's watch" problem.

But yeah, I totally agree with you there. The lack of urgency in Fallout 2 utterly kills the whole idea that you were sent out to save your town in the first place. You're all trumped up to save it, shown the dying kids and cattle, then you leave Arroyo... AND NOTHING! You just aimlessly roam the world until you're big and bad enough to blow up that one little oil rig.

Fallout was much, much better about how everything was handled, and that includes the time limit.

Doc Hill · Post by **Doc Hill** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 7:08 pm

Well, I actualy enjoyed all the subquests, they made the game more real, I mean your a strong person, traveling in a large group and probably not a complete bastard, so why wouldn't people ask for your help? Of course I could be wrong...

Sirgalahadwizard · Post by **Sirgalahadwizard** » Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:31 pm

Fallout 1 definatly had a timelimit... but it didn't have a timelimit for destroying the mutant army though (well, the vats and master anyway... never said anything about taking on the entire mutant army).

Fallout 2 had a timelimit, but it was damn long - I never exceeded it, and they never did tell you how long you have (it's in the years category though). And it may have had a timelimit for dealing with the enclave but im not sure.

The point is, after you destroyed the mutants, after you destroyed the oil rig... the game was essentially over. There was no major challenge after that to deal with, the story just didn't continue on. It only proves my point that the end game screens came up as soon as you beat the enclave. Sure it let you continue playing, but to what end? None, your super character just didn't have anything else to be put to work on - as a professial hero, you were officially laid-off. (im just glad you weren't truly laid-off in Fo2 like you were in Fo1... you ended up being an elder instead of being ostrasized).

What im saying is that you go find the critical part to your survival, go beat the badguy... and mysteriously the game doesn't end, no endgame screens or anything. Most of us players would be left in shock - surely the game is over? What if it is over and there wasn't an endgame movie. For those of us that were severly shocked we wouldn't find out that the game still continues until we've trodded over half the known world before coming back home... or some other place only to find out that we've wasted so much time dillying around when the game really is continuing and we've lost so much time we could have used to deal with the next enemy/perdicament.

I want the game to do this several times. That's the way I was designing my "Aftermath" game (no connection to an older game with similar name). You go find the parts neccicary to make your colony survive, you go kick the raiders' ass, and mysteriously the game doesn't end... and you find out in a month or two that things just went from the frying pan to the fire (uhh... the new bastards holed up in the east).

But anyway, like I was saying, what I really want is a much, much larger map, with many more locations on it, and at least three main nemesi (and "go find the part" quests). Basically I want Fo3 to be two or three games in one.

Doc Hill · Post by **Doc Hill** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 3:28 am

I agree. I also want Fallout three to be TOTALLY COMPLETE. I want no broken quests to make me feel frustrated. Also the multiple boss idea definately has merit.

Som Guy · Post by **Som Guy** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:40 am

Doyle wrote:
In my opinion, the overal experience of FO2 suffered simply because the game lacked any sense of purpose that a time limit would have provided.

Does this mean your life has no sense of purpose after all it isn't on a time limit. I'm just joking though really i just don't like being forced in a game and fallout didn't force me in any way except for the time limit. And fallout 2 didnt force me at all. Like i said before i move too slow for the time limit im the type who trys to find every secret on his own without skipping anything. I would spend months in a certain town to make sure i didn't miss anything.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 5:17 am

Som Guy wrote:Does this mean your life has no sense of purpose after all it isn't on a time limit.

No time limit on life? Maybe you're not old enough to feel it yet, but the ultimate time limit is looking o'er your shoulder: Death.

OTB

Som Guy · Post by **Som Guy** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 6:24 am

Yes but that time limit is based on how you live your life. it is in fact changable.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:24 pm

That's a moot point. This whole tangent is, really, since I don't play games to emulate real life. I doubt that many do.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 2:21 pm

If you don't like playing games that makes you feel you are in your charecter shoes, maybe you shouldn't play real RPGs.

You can stick with Diablo, then.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 6:04 pm

The whole stupid GECK quest was so ridiculous it didn't need a time limit. In fact, it would have been even sillier with a time limit. The 'save your village from the Enclave' -quest, on the other hand, should've definitely had a time limit because the Enclave wouldn't wait for 5 years for the Chosen One to get there and destoy their evil plans.
Time limit in Fallout was a good thing in my opinion, sure it limits the game at some extent(not being able to wander around the desert to find special encounters) but it makes the game more compact, giving you less time to fool around and making it important to plan your actions and to constantly develop your PC to be able to fight against the bad dudes. Note: it didn't make the game more difficult(because you easily get the waterchip before the time limit), it gave the quest more importance and a feeling of urgency, which is good. I'd like to see the same system in Fallout 3.

Doc Hill · Post by **Doc Hill** » Sat Oct 05, 2002 8:32 pm

Hmmm....I think I like it! IT seems that the time limit is a major point of contension. If...no when, Fallout three is made, they will havew ot walk a fine line, and VasikkA seems to have a plan. Anyone else have ideas?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 12:06 am

Dan, you completely missed the point.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 12:28 am

VasikkA wrote:The whole stupid GECK quest was so ridiculous it didn't need a time limit. In fact, it would have been even sillier with a time limit.

Eh? Come again?!

I would think that if one's village were starving to death it would go w/o saying that there is a time limit. "Yeah, we're starving, but we'll be okay for the next 13 years or so until the hardcoded engine limit kicks in," doesn't sound quite right.

I will grant that if your village was already in the sad state that was shown in the intro movie a GECK probably wouldn't help, especially if it was just a briefcase full of seeds and blueprints.

Vasikka wrote:The 'save your village from the Enclave' -quest, on the other hand, should've definitely had a time limit because the Enclave wouldn't wait for 5 years for the Chosen One to get there and destoy their evil plans.

IMHO that part should have been a very short limit indeed. Say 60 or so days, max.

Vasikka wrote:I'd like to see the same system in Fallout 3.

Hear, hear!

Doc Hill wrote:Anyone else have ideas?

Yeah, I do: One thing I'd like to see is the enemy/enemies plan(s) actually react to how quickly your character was acting. For instance, in FO2 your character will arrive just in the nick of time, regardless of whether you're there in January the year after having started the game (eminantly "do-able") or if you're squeeking past the 13 year limit inherent in the game. It would be best to have the game get harder the longer you take. Plus, you could also script in possibilities for Diplomatic characters to discover the plans early on, then go around and form a coalition to take out the "Main Bad Guy(s)". This way, while the finale might require violence, at least you wouldn't have to fight on your own w/only your NPCs to back you up. Basically, it would be good to script in not only different solutions to the same problems, but also seperate tracks for different approaches. (I know this would be a scripting nightmare since there will be players out there that change their approaches at some point in the game.)

OTB

Doc Hill · Post by **Doc Hill** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 6:23 am

I like that. Granted that it would take forever to do what we have been talking about, but it would truly be a great thing. For my own Idea, there is one part of fot that was good. The vehicles. I would have loved to hijack a vertibird. Or maybe that saucer in Fo1. And the cities should be bigger, like some of the maps in fot. And I would love it to be tied too the other fallout games(exceot fot, maybe as joke, but really, that game wasn't really fallout as we have come to know it.) Now on to my next subject, power armor. Power armor is the hallmark off fallout to me, every game had it's own unique power armor(t-1b, my favorite) From the bucket head too the demonesque, it was truly cool. I think that it should be more custumizable. What do you think? Am I smoking something, or am I on to something?

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 6:34 am

Doc Hill wrote:Power armor is the hallmark off fallout to me, every game had it's own unique power armor(t-1b, my favorite) From the bucket head too the demonesque, it was truly cool. I think that it should be more custumizable. What do you think? Am I smoking something, or am I on to something?

I don't think that every new game needs a new type of PA. IMHO one of the problems with FoT was that it traded in the clunky, retro-PA for the Geiger-esque version that looked like it would have been more at home on a Colonial Marine than the Vault Dweller. In a case like this you have to ask yourself, "Why are they changing how it looks?" There was no reason for the BoS to "reinvent the wheel" for purely aesthetic purposes, especially since they weren't able to produce PA, but rather just keep extant suits running.

If you're actually going to introduce a new type of PA into the game each and every time the franchise is expanded it'll turn into an item-driven game all too quickly w/the main character not being able to survive w/o acquiring more and more powerful "shiney doo-dads". For instance, in FO getting the good ol' fashioned T-51b PA was a major accomplishment, but in FO2 it was only a stepping stone. Not only that, but they didn't end the armor progression w/just one suit of armor more advanced than PA, but they also had to add a Mk II version of it. This has the unfortunate result of turning the game into a combat oriented one, since the combat options essentially become the easiest/most diverse/requires the least creativity.

As for PA add-ons, it really depends on what you'd want to do. I think as long as you stick to simple things like allowing an Infrared night vision device to be installed -- which would have to have penalties to off-set the bonuses, for instance you would hit targets in low light more easily, but have a penalty to hit targets in (clean) well-lighted places -- you'll be okay. If you're looking to allow rocket-pack additions that allow you to fly from one end of the map to the other in a single turn you're asking for trouble.

OTB

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sun Oct 06, 2002 6:33 pm

OnTheBounce wrote:I will grant that if your village was already in the sad state that was shown in the intro movie a GECK probably wouldn't help, especially if it was just a briefcase full of seeds and blueprints.

That's what I meant. I never liked the quest in the first place so putting a time limit 'you have X days left until we're all dead' is a bit ridiculous. Learn to cultivate!

The power armor in FOT was basically an APA. The bad thing about it was that almost every PC I had in my group had an Power Armor so they didn't feel so 'powerful' as in Fallout, they were standard. Same problem was in Fallout 2, the whole APA thing lowered the coolness of the regular PA, which should've definitely been the best armor in the game.

I'd prefer a shoulderlamp rather than hitech infrared nightvision goggles.