Duck and Cover

I had bugs in arcanum from the start but i still haven't experiaced any in fallout 2 minus the exploitable ones. But still none that interupted your gameplay.

There is a parallel path Fallout is taking with the previous XCOM case. Everybody can see where this led MicroProse. If you thing of it the mags wrote about XCOM 4 in similar ways they did about FoT. The big difference was the demo and the big change on Genre. If FoT was a first person shooter, it would be obvious that much less people would buy it.

Personally I would be happy with a FoT2, since I knew what kind of game I was buying so I wasn't very dissapointed with the limits(though I did expect it would be more modifiable) in the game. But IPLAY cannot possible ever persuade the people who thought that they lost their money in FoT to buy a similar title, so they might consider that dead(Well actually there is a way but as it requires having a well of gold, I won't expand here).

If you think of it it's an excellent example of how good marketing will upgrade your sales but still might hurt them in the future. Companies should always make it clear to the customers, what sort of products they're selling them. They failed to do that with FoT and they lost their credibility, I hardly think it can be restored(regarding the FO world) but releasing FO3 would be a step to that direction.

Flamescreen wrote:But IPLY cannot possible ever persuade the people who thought that they lost their money in FoT to buy a similar title, so they might consider that dead.

Unfortunately I think you're right there. However, I'd buy FoT2 if it was only FoT w/all of the things implemented that they were going to implement in FoT. (You know, all of those trigger options, the selecting of which is a waste of calories and mouse life, as well as the Perks.)

What I'd like to see FoT2 include would be:

• Dialogue Options. At least a simply binary, preferably full-blown FO-esque dialogue to include options based on the speaker's stats, requiring skill/ability checks, etc.
• Pause Option. Or something else that eased issues of trying to manage up to 6 characters at once. (Although I was dead set against CTB at first, there really are advantages to it beyond simply speeding up game play.)
• FO Items. This includes weapons, armor and any/all other items. Don't listen to gun nuts that want everything from yesterday, today or tomorrow from our timeline in a game world that diverged from our own somewhere around WWII. Don't streamline extant armor types to make them look more sleak. Boxy and bulky are good in this case!
• Accuracy. The game should be more properly integrated into the setting and not represent "another view of the FO universe", when in fact it's closer to unrelated.

Unfortunately, it's probably not going to happen.

Flamescreen wrote:Companies should always make it clear to the customers, what sort of products they're selling them.

Indeed they should, however they usually don't. Therefore we as gamers, or even as general consumers, have to take the necessary steps to keep ourselves from stepping in the same pile of dog shit over and over and over again ad nauseum.

OTB

Say, just what is MicroForte working on right now, if anything? Secret projects?

I loved Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. Although the only bug I got in FO2 back around the times when I first played it was that one where you'd try to either follow that guy into the graveyard hole or out of it, and it'd crash(right now, it no longer works on my monster gaming maching. Guess it has no love for my Geforce4 card, since it minimizes to the taskbar and refuses to maximize) - but other than that, no real huge bugs for me in FO2. FO1 I had no problems. It doesn't run too well in win2k tho, always exits out to the desktop, but of course Win2k wasn't out when FO1 came out.

FO:T...will probably be the first and last Tactical game I play. It was the only one I could enjoy anyways, since it was the Fallout universe, whether you like that or not. I still consider it part of the universe. The storyline and concepts were all awesome. But then the engine itself was utter crap. It seemed like after patches or something...no matter how many milimeters on the map I moved, bos.exe would crash constantly. I could never finish the game b/c of the crashes.

Arcanum...other than fallout 1 and 2, is the only RPG I could ever get into. A mix of Fallout feel with some Tolkien-inspired stuff...in a world slowly modernizing from myths and magick to modern technology. Quite awesome and impressive, and the only qualm I had up until a patch was the fact that the actual playing view sucked until the fullscreen option, with the smaller HUD display.

I really do hope though that somebody decent gets it together and makes a Fallout 3. Not only is it one of the Best PC RPG's ever (I personally don't think any of the RPG's for PC can dispute that. none. I don't care how cool the newer ones look graphically) - but it is also one of the funnest to replay.

So in closing. Fallout 3 is needed, wanted and long lost. Interplay is going the route of Sierra. Making crap for new games and forgetting the games of their roots.

well for one Sierra made arcanum which you have already praised in your article. Try not to be contradictory like that. Also your pretty long winded which is a good thing very few of us can write that much without writing a pos. You seem to have a pretty good view of things but trust me if interplay continues in the downhilll slide they are going in they will become bankrupt and the copyrights to fallout will probably go to the hightest bidder. So either way if interplay goes up or down we may see a fallout 3 soon.

Som Guy wrote:well for one Sierra made arcanum which you have already praised in your article.

No, it was published by Sierra in rare form. It was made by Troika. Do you know who Troika are?

Try not to be contradictory like that.

Try not to be an idiot like that.

Also your pretty long winded which is a good thing very few of us can write that much without writing a pos. You seem to have a pretty good view of things but trust me if interplay continues in the downhilll slide they are going in they will become bankrupt and the copyrights to fallout will probably go to the hightest bidder. So either way if interplay goes up or down we may see a fallout 3 soon.

Unlike Troika and Sierra, Interplay is part of Titus and BIS is a part of Interplay. Not technically, but in reality. Bascially at this point with how Titus is raping the hell out of Interplay, their stock will not be worth the paper it's printed on soon and the title will be sold off in a shareholder desire. Unfortunately, that couldn't have happened already as we have often wished, as it usually takes a majority vote to do that and Titus owns the majority last I checked and intends to do so until they've ground Interplay down into the dirt at a loss.

I wonder if France pays the game companies like Austrailia...

OnTheBounce wrote:Unfortunately I think you're right there. However, I'd buy FoT2 if it was only FoT w/all of the things implemented that they were going to implement in FoT. (You know, all of those trigger options, the selecting of which is a waste of calories and mouse life, as well as the Perks.)

What I'd like to see FoT2 include would be:

• Dialogue Options. At least a simply binary, preferably full-blown FO-esque dialogue to include options based on the speaker's stats, requiring skill/ability checks, etc. [/b]

I agree here.

[*] Pause Option. Or something else that eased issues of trying to manage up to 6 characters at once. (Although I was dead set against CTB at first, there really are advantages to it beyond simply speeding up game play.)

You SUCK, OTB! No Fallout's Gate, thank you very much!

[*] FO Items. This includes weapons, armor and any/all other items. Don't listen to gun nuts that want everything from yesterday, today or tomorrow from our timeline in a game world that diverged from our own somewhere around WWII. Don't streamline extant armor types to make them look more sleak. Boxy and bulky are good in this case!

I agree here as well. In fact, remove all the shitty real world weapons from FOT and replace them with FO's weapons.

[*] Accuracy. The game should be more properly integrated into the setting and not represent "another view of the FO universe", when in fact it's closer to unrelated. [/list]

I agree here. However, they should have matched Fallout's attempt to capture PnP gameplay with trying to capture table top wargames like Mech Warrior, Starfleet Battles, Necromunda, etc. At least that would have locked them in to the roots of what Fallout was.

Instead of having real time, automated combat, they should have gone for the BESTEST TURN BASED TABLE TOP GAMEPLAY EVAR.

Saint_Proverbius wrote:You SUCK, OTB! No Fallout's Gate, thank you very much!

Hey, I've never played the IE games, so I have to ask: "What makes RT w/pause option so bad?" If it's the fact that you can't pay attention to everything at once, I think that adding some chaos to a combat-oriented game might actually be a good thing. It would certainly be easier to manage than the current CTB method where you have to rehearse what you're going to do, then hope you can spaz out in the correct order when the fat's in the fire, essentially having one "star" and five "supporting actors" at a time.

Saint_Proverbius wrote:I agree here as well. In fact, remove all the shitty real world weapons from FOT and replace them with FO's weapons.

Well, even if FoT2 never comes out, at least there's a mod of FoT that's doing it. :mrgreen:

Saint_Proverbius wrote:...[T]hey should have matched Fallout's attempt to capture PnP gameplay with trying to capture table top wargames like Mech Warrior, Starfleet Battles, Necromunda, etc. At least that would have locked them in to the roots of what Fallout was.

One thing that made me feel...soiled when I played FoT in TB was that you could expoit the non-hex-based terrain and move a short distance w/o using an AP. I think that they should have stuck w/the hex-based terrain, even though it makes movement a bit "chunky".

TB has some serious problems when it comes to combat, though. While I'm not afraid of RT, I wish that game designers would sit down and try to fix TB rather than simply jumping on the RT bandwagon. If you've ever played the Avalon Hill's Advanced Squad Leader while sucking down copious amounts of beer and munching on pretzels you know that there are ways to get around these.

For instance, there was a concept known as "Defensive First Fire". Basically it boils down to that the defender (i.e. the non-moving player) could fire any and all units that had a shot remaining at any moving unit. This might need some work as I wouldn't want to have interface boxes popping up all over the place every time someone moves, but the basic concept could be implemented. This would keep targets from dashing across areas w/o getting laid into. You could also stipulate that a target had to be in view long enough for a firer to acquire, aim and fire at the target, which could be simulated by requiring that a target has to spend a number of APs in LoS equal to or greater than the number of APs required to fire the weapon. Anything less would incur a heavy penalty, which would reflect the fact that some weapons are more useful for "snap shots" than others.

Another concept from ASL that would work is the "Fire Lane" concept. Basically, it allows a firer to keep "attacking" an area w/an automatic weapon for the duration of a turn. If one guy steps into a hallway and you fire a Vindicator Minigun at him any rounds that don't strike him "attack" the area you fired into until the turn is over. Under the current system it's too easy to get "bum-rushed" by multiple opponents who have to come through a door or around a corner to get to you. If would also keep people from taking Action Boy and doing a appear/fire/disappear on the enemy who never got off a shot. FoT tried to counter this, but IMHO is wasn't satisfactory since you needed all of your AP for Overwatch and the first thing that came into your accuracy threshold tripped the Sentry Mode.

All I've heard about this sort of thing regarding FO3 was an allusion to the fact that there things that could be done in TB to counter its idiosyncracies, but that they were easier to fix in RT. That doesn't sound like they're willing to try too hard.

OTB

I have a thing to add to the "FoT2 wish list"

Let's actually make it tactful. (That a word?)

Nothing in that game could not be solved with arming all squaddies with big guns (M2 comes to mind) and just charging in to the fray. I'd like to see morale failure, flanking, and everything that made the Close Combat series bad ass. (including squad mates counter manding orders)

Hammer wrote:Let's actually make it tactful. (That a word?)

I think you mean tactical, unless you're refering to the rape/shit jokes.

Hammer wrote:Nothing in that game could not be solved with arming all squaddies with big guns (M2 comes to mind) and just charging in to the fray. I'd like to see morale failure, flanking, and everything that made the Close Combat series bad ass. (including squad mates counter manding orders)

Morale might be hard to implement if you have full control of your (N)PC's. It would feel funny if your squaddies start retreating from battle because their morale is low. It'd fit much better to suffer penalties(lowered accuracy etc.) if you're pinned down in a crossfire or you're shocked from a grenade blast.

You're right about Close Combat though, it's simply the best RTS series ever, picturing the minds of soldiers better than any other game has done up to date. Too bad it's one of the most underrated RTS game there is.

VasikkA wrote: Morale might be hard to implement if you have full control of your (N)PC's. It would feel funny if your squaddies start retreating from battle because their morale is low. It'd fit much better to suffer penalties(lowered accuracy etc.) if you're pinned down in a crossfire or you're shocked from a grenade blast.

Have you ever played Jagged Alliance or Jagged Alliance 2?

Yes. But I don't expect combat with same diversity/quality in Fallout 3, especially with their current staff although JA combat is fun and addictive.

I don't think morale is relevant in CRPG combat, because of the nature of CRPG battles. They are usually in form of encounters, against a pack of enemies, not huge squad based tactical battles like in more tactical shooters, FOT, X-COM and JA for example. Crouching/proning/suppressive fire would be welcome additions though.

VasikkA wrote:I don't think morale is relevant in CRPG combat, because of the nature of CRPG battles.

Vasikka, even 1st Ed. AD&D had morale rules for NPCs. There already are some rudimentary rules for NPC morale in FO/FO2, for instance the fact that your mules...er..."companions" will run away if they are nearly dead, or crippled; or they will get fed up w/you if you hit them too much in combat. Don't you think expanding on that a bit might be a good thing? For instance, they might have a threshold for the number of attacks that are launched at them. If it is exceeded they will fall back or even break and run. (Enemies should do the same, of course.)

What I'd like to see is NPCs that have idiosyncratic traits. For instance, a Sulik-like fighter that will look an Enclave Trooper in the eye and spit as he's perforated w/2mm EC, but who sceams and runs away at the mere sight of a rat. Or perhaps anything insect-like terrifies him to the point of paralysis.

OTB

OTB, that's a good idea, the idiosyncratic behaviours. Really good. I could code that. I may have already coded that. I will code that.

TimCain wrote:OTB, that's a good idea, the idiosyncratic behaviours. Really good. I could code that. I may have already coded that. I will code that.

You do that, Mr. Cain, and I'll buy your next game even if it does have elves, dwarves and goblins in it!

OTB

Tim Cain strikes me as the type of person that doesn't where Pants. Anyone else feel that way?

You know something I've always wanted to see in an RPG is the concept of "mercy". The idea that you could beat someone up, and rather than kill them, ask them to yield to you.

That's one thing that always annoyed me about Fallout. Beat on them for a bit, then use your turn to say, "Okay, you've seen what I can do.. Wouldn't you rather be my friend?"

Of course, I'll admit there are problems with this, especially since it would allow weapon skills to usurp diplomacy skills. However, I think it would expand the role playing potential of the game. It would also allow you to win back over those people who are accidentally hit by those stray bullets during combat.

OnTheBounce wrote:Vasikka, even 1st Ed. AD&D had morale rules for NPCs. There already are some rudimentary rules for NPC morale in FO/FO2, for instance the fact that your mules...er..."companions" will run away if they are nearly dead, or crippled; or they will get fed up w/you if you hit them too much in combat. Don't you think expanding on that a bit might be a good thing? For instance, they might have a threshold for the number of attacks that are launched at them. If it is exceeded they will fall back or even break and run. (Enemies should do the same, of course.)

Well, I seem to have slightly misunderstood the point. Of course NPCs should have 'emotions(AI)' and try to run away if badly hurt. I thought more of another kind of morale in games, affecting the effectiveness and willpower of how your companions fight. For example a 'good morale' would encourage your NPCs to heroic actions and a bad morale would lead to lack of willpower to fight. I don't like the idea of a morale-o-meter, which you'd constantly try to keep high. Confused? Me too.