Duck and Cover

im still not for the idea of zombies its just having them would be better than misrepesenting ghouls. I always thought of ghouls as really old guys in the sense of their anger. They always complain but never do anything about it. So they wouldn't attack anyone.

Ghouls attacked me all the time in Fallout 1.

And you have kind old people who give you money and stuff, then you have crazy old people who shit themselves then run after you with a shotugn.

Some Ghouls should be in wheelchairs though, for added hilarious crippling comedy effect.

Pyro wrote:Ghouls attacked me all the time in Fallout 1.

So did some of the 'normals' too, and there were friendly ghouls too(Harold, the ghouls in sewers in Necropolis). Necropolis was controlled by a smoothskin-hostile group, that explains why they attacked you at sight.

And you have kind old people who give you money and stuff, then you have crazy old people who shit themselves then run after you with a shotugn.

Yes, world is full of wackos.

Some Ghouls should be in wheelchairs though, for added hilarious crippling comedy effect.

What I'd like to see in Fo3 is towns that are much more interactive with the player. You should have much more influence on them.

- Towns that actually grow, if you let them or die out, if you cooperate with their enemies,

- Possibility to just wipe out some town that annoys you - not only people but buildings. And then i want it to be "noticed" by the game that this town just doesn't exist,

- Towns that just appear randomly, quite out of the blue in the middle of the wasteland,

- Some kind of quests generator for those towns, based on what potential problems might people settled randomly in certain places encounter,

- Possibility to rule some town. Maybe not exacly "to rule" but to take it over and get taxes... ehm... for "protection" ,

- Possibility to form a kinda gang based on mercenaries that keep peace in towns that you had taken over.

- Organisations or paramilitary groups that if you join them, you can really expect some help from them in some of your dirty work.

Yeah, I always wondered that.

I'm the most powerful being i the world. I can wipe out armys in a few hours. Why can't I own a few slaves or even a brahmin cart to carry my crap around?

You should at least get a house somewhere to dump your stuff and use as a kind of base. It's fine wiping out a town or something to use, but it takes away the role-playing element. And what if you were a pacifist?

Mabye you could buy shares in small companys, then go and sabotage the competition so you get loads of money.

you should have to battle the first racoon ever infected with FEV, it should be 10 times the size of a normal HOUSE!!! lol... jk

Pyro wrote:I'm the most powerful being i the world. I can wipe out armys in a few hours.

I believe i've mentioned that before. What i'd like to see in Fo3 is more situations that i actually feel.. small. I'm not a superman just a human and game should be balanced the way that either:

- wouldn't allow you to get too powerful, maybe by less powerful perks, less hit points per level*, or just less exp points for quests and your victims.

- would bring more powerful enemies and harder random encounters, like the "squadron of super mutants passing by", or battalion of NCR rangers of course near the less powerful ones like the patrol units.

*As for the hit points.. no doubt about that humans aren't too tough beings. I think that max endurance for human should be 6/7, and no perks like "lifegiver". That would solve the "I've blasted someones head of with shotgun, and he's still attacking me" like problems.

Meths wrote:What I'd like to see in Fo3 is towns that are much more interactive with the player. You should have much more influence on them.

Definitely more interactive towns. They should be alive, people going to work, to sleep, etc.. Maybe the criminal activities would flourish during the nights. New Reno looked exactly the same no matter what time of day it was.
You had a lot of influence in most towns in previous Fallouts. Almost every town had their own endings. Probably one of the best features in Fallout, when it comes to re-play value.

- Towns that actually grow, if you let them or die out, if you cooperate with their enemies,

Well, you should have the choice to work for either the good or the bad in a town. Or don't give a shit. About growing.. I don't know. The time period is probably quite short to see any effect. What do you exactly mean?

- Possibility to just wipe out some town that annoys you - not only people but buildings. And then i want it to be "noticed" by the game that this town just doesn't exist,

Well, I always wanted to wipe out Vault City, but in the name of game balance I do hope you can only 'destroy' NPCs, not buildings. Non-linearity yeah, but what's the point?

- Towns that just appear randomly, quite out of the blue in the middle of the wasteland,

Like Modoc in Fallout 2? Definitely a good idea.

- Some kind of quests generator for those towns, based on what potential problems might people settled randomly in certain places encounter,

Sounds like a long shot, but if it would work then why not. I don't usually like any type of generators, but different quests in every playthrough would be nice.

- Possibility to rule some town. Maybe not exacly "to rule" but to take it over and get taxes... ehm... for "protection" ,

Nah, your character wouldn't probably have the time to rule a town, because there's a main quest to follow.

- Possibility to form a kinda gang based on mercenaries that keep peace in towns that you had taken over.

Same as above.

- Organisations or paramilitary groups that if you join them, you can really expect some help from them in some of your dirty work.

Sounds good. I'd like more active factions and rivalry between the different factions. In exchange for their services(a party NPC, perhaps?) you'd have to be committed to one while in their service. Of course you would have the possibility to spy for one faction or leave them(and face the consequences).

VasikkA wrote:

- Organisations or paramilitary groups that if you join them, you can really expect some help from them in some of your dirty work.

Sounds good. I'd like more active factions and rivalry between the different factions. In exchange for their services(a party NPC, perhaps?) you'd have to be committed to one while in their service. Of course you would have the possibility to spy for one faction or leave them(and face the consequences).

Yeah... I was deeply disappointed that you couldn't have real gang wars in New Reno and the Brotherhood wasn't really helpful in invading the Mariposa military base. It's just some surface dirt and when you wipe it off you notice that there isn't *a shit* under it. You know what I mean....

VasikkA wrote:Nah, your character wouldn't probably have the time to rule a town, because there's a main quest to follow.

Let's see.. You wipe out the entire Vault City just for fun. You kill just everyone including the innocent civilians. Wouldn't the fun be greater if they could "buy" their lifes? Of course too keep them paying you regulary you would need to leave some NPCs/mercs in that city. It was in previous Fallouts as well, but only in particular cases (Bob in the Hub and his iguanas, Roger Moore from VC). Why not to make it common way of solving problems?

Kashluk wrote:Yeah... I was deeply disappointed that you couldn't have real gang wars in New Reno and the Brotherhood wasn't really helpful in invading the Mariposa military base. It's just some surface dirt and when you wipe it off you notice that there isn't *a shit* under it. You know what I mean....

Belonging to some paramilitary organisations like BoS or some organised raiders groups etc should be much more significant than it was in previous parts, optional however. As i said the game should be balanced the way that would make surviving alone in the wasteland almost impossible. No "i'm the most powerful being in the world, i can wipe out whole armies" stuff, as Pyro noticed. You're just a soldier, raider, merc, slaver or even worse shit, maybe better than average, or even much better, but you're only a human. Not a superman of any kind.

Meths wrote:Let's see.. You wipe out the entire Vault City just for fun. You kill just everyone including the innocent civilians. Wouldn't the fun be greater if they could "buy" their lifes? Of course too keep them paying you regulary you would need to leave some NPCs/mercs in that city. It was in previous Fallouts as well, but only in particular cases (Bob in the Hub and his iguanas, Roger Moore from VC). Why not to make it common way of solving problems?

I thought you meant a mayor type of thing. Terrorising/looting towns and get the townspeople to pay you regularly sounds like a good job for raiders. Perhaps you could join them and get your share. :roll:
But about the ruling thing.. I've always considered the PC in Fallouts as a 'wanderer' type of person who has to move on. Of course you have the freedom to waste time(like searching for special encounters etc.)as much as you want, but ruling a town wouldn't really be that special. You could own a castle in BG2, but I never considered it as 'fun'. Just a nice little, but useless, addition.

VasikkA wrote:Terrorising/looting towns and get the townspeople to pay you regularly sounds like a good job for raiders. Perhaps you could join them and get your share. :roll:

That's exacly what I meant .
But with a high enough charisma why not to become the leader of some raiders group. In previous parts you could become a sherif of Redding or captain of the guards in VC, but there was no actual use in this.

As a captain of the guards, you should be able to get military aid from VC whenever you want. For example take some of them to NCR and wipe the whole city out. However i don't like the general idea of haveing any certain job myself. On the other hand it would be more realistic if you could become just anyone you want. I don't know.

As a leader of some raiders, you would be able to perform some attack on larger scale. You wouldn't be forced to fight against whole town only by yourself or with some NPCs that cause more problems than they're worth.

VasikkA wrote:But about the ruling thing.. I've always considered the PC in Fallouts as a 'wanderer' type of person who has to move on. Of course you have the freedom to waste time(like searching for special encounters etc.)as much as you want, but ruling a town wouldn't really be that special. You could own a castle in BG2, but I never considered it as 'fun'. Just a nice little, but useless, addition.

Maybe not exacly to rule anything, but I thought about smth that you can belong to, and then, maybe with high charisma and luck become a leader. Anyway, one person on the wasteland has almost no chance of survival. You should have some friends don't you think? Have some place that when you have troubles, you can always receive help from.

As for ruling towns, i didn't mean to become a mayor of any kind. Just take some settlement by force, if you're a slaver then maybe to turn inhabitants into slaves and sell them off, force them to pay you taxes regulary, rob them all completely at once, or just set them free. You decide.


There is one more thing that i didn't write. How about:

- Towns that get attacked by raiders, deathclaws, mutants (depends on the region) quite randomly.

My favourite FoT mission was "Junktion City". The Reavers estabilished small outpost outside the town, and started attacking quite regulary. That's what i mean. Every city should be surrounded by a vast area that potential invaders may occupy, estabilish a camp and attack the town from. When more than one group invade the city in the same time, then they may either ally or fight with each other as well as with the city guards.

The obvious quest that the mayor of this town would qive you would be to wipe them out of course.

You became a deputy or a co-sheriff in Redding, IIRC. Captain of guards sounds cool although I haven't gotten to be one, yet. These are nice little jobs to have, but they don't seem very logical to me. Your character is out on adventures most of the time. That leaves no time for solving local worries, so you wouldn't be very good at that job, right? Temporary jobs are ok. They are also known as quests.

Anyway, one person on the wasteland has almost no chance of survival. You should have some friends don't you think? Have some place that when you have troubles, you can always receive help from.

I agree with you here. That's what the different factions in the wasteland are for, baby! Of course, your character should have the choice of travelling or solving quests by yourself, but the different factions spice up the fallout universe and give you the opportunity to be a part of something bigger. Perhaps you could advance in their hierarchy and become a small authority. Not exactly a ruler though. Being a part of a faction should have both good and bad sides. You'd get some help from them for your main quest/s(maybe in form of a henchman?) but there would always be persons who dislikes your organisation or group. In worst case you'd miss out a lot of the quests. Especially if you join an evil group, like slavers or raiders.

Being a BoS recruit in Fallout was very well done in my opinion. They promised to help you in your quest if you do a favor for them and they did help you. You also got ammo/items from BoS and learned quite a bit about the Brotherhood and their history.

VasikkA wrote:You'd get some help from them for your main quest/s

I'd rather i got their help whenever i ask them, and convince them. In some dirty work as well (this one should depend on what exacly the org is)

but there would always be persons who dislikes your organisation or group. In worst case you'd miss out a lot of the quests. Especially if you join an evil group, like slavers or raiders.

Quite obvious..

Being a BoS recruit in Fallout was very well done in my opinion. They promised to help you in your quest if you do a favor for them and they did help you. You also got ammo/items from BoS and learned quite a bit about the Brotherhood and their history.

hemm.. they could have helped more...

Meths wrote:hemm.. they could have helped more...

Well, the BoS weren't directly opposing the Master and his mutant army. It's not their main purpose. Of course, they were worried about the current situation and decided to support the Vault Dweller by offering some assistance. Perhaps they didn't continue inside the military base in fear of more losses. They had lost a few initiates against the mutants before, IIRC. Also, this could be because of game balance reasons. Otherwise destroying the base would have been way too easy.

VasikkA wrote:

- Towns that actually grow, if you let them or die out, if you cooperate with their enemies,

Well, you should have the choice to work for either the good or the bad in a town. Or don't give a shit. About growing.. I don't know. The time period is probably quite short to see any effect. What do you exactly mean?

It would depend on how long the game will be. If there is any time restrict or not. Compliting Fo2 takes about a year - it's a lot of time for dynamic, newly built communities, like NCR.

Saying "growing" I meant:

:arrow: Population that increases/decreases. You might find new people every time you visit that city. On the other hand, when you don't help places like Modoc for example, you may observe this town dying - people just leave, looking for better future. That would force the player to hurry up.

:arrow: Newscomers that settle in the city would build their houses and set up some businesses. Technically it can be done.

:arrow: It should be possible that town's completely destroyed by some raiders (watch above).

VasikkA wrote:

Meths wrote:- Possibility to just wipe out some town that annoys you - not only people but buildings. And then i want it to be "noticed" by the game that this town just doesn't exist,

Well, I always wanted to wipe out Vault City, but in the name of game balance I do hope you can only 'destroy' NPCs, not buildings. Non-linearity yeah, but what's the point?

Destroying the buildings can be quite useful while you wipe the city out. The only way to do that would be various explosives that you have to plant under certain buildings. If there are any people inside, they would be hit for 0 - 1000 hitpoints (it should depend on where exacly they were in the building). If anybody see you planting the bomb he would call the police and you'd have a party . It would be funny to play as a sneaker and plant explosives in entire city. Then just push the red button and watch the effects OR negotiate to get some ransom. That would open a possibility to to be another kind of character - terrorist .

VasikkA wrote:

VasikkA wrote:- Some kind of quests generator for those towns, based on what potential problems might people settled randomly in certain places encounter,

Sounds like a long shot, but if it would work then why not. I don't usually like any type of generators, but different quests in every playthrough would be nice.

A challenge for programmers sure it would be. But why not to let Fo3 be a game that people will remember. However we have to keep in minds that Fo3 won't be released just tommorow. It's good 3/4 years or even more yet. Think about what was 4 years ago (Fo2 ) and what is now. Now what may be in next 4 years???... wow . I think that it is possible and they should take that challenge. Without challenges there's no advance.

VasikkA wrote:

- Possibility to form a kinda gang based on mercenaries that keep peace in towns that you had taken over.

Same as above.

Why not to hire mercs if you're non-combative character and want to wipe smbd out?

Meths wrote:Destroying the buildings can be quite useful while you wipe the city out. The only way to do that would be various explosives that you have to plant under certain buildings. If there are any people inside, they would be hit for 0 - 1000 hitpoints (it should depend on where exacly they were in the building). If anybody see you planting the bomb he would call the police and you'd have a party . It would be funny to play as a sneaker and plant explosives in entire city. Then just push the red button and watch the effects OR negotiate to get some ransom. That would open a possibility to to be another kind of character - terrorist .

Guess twice are the american censorship offices going to let such a game to be published were Terr0r1zm is a good thing?!?! 8O

I would like to see much more complex towns in Fallout 3. Not only quest-wise, but with more maps and whatnot.

As for the organizations, I think that should work more like the Blades helped with Adytum, and the Followers helping with the Cathedral. It should be some kind of physical help, not just, "We support you."

"American censorship offices?" Short of being pornographic, any videogame censorship in America is pretty much voluntary.

Well, major retailers could withdraw the game from their shelves. Just like what Wal-Mart did with Hitman 2, because of similarity to the Washington sniper thingy.