Duck and Cover

Skynet Brain Bot wrote: requiem made a good point that most of the quests are for lower intelligence characters, although this contradicts what i said earlier it does higlight that the game is too linear. Very little of what you do has a profound effect on the outcome of the game, you can murder everything with a pulse and still blunder your way through the game and save the world. and if all else fails wander the map till you find the right places. Good, evil, size, shape, clothing, reputation, should all affect what kind of game you play, in fallout and to a greater extent in f2 all this meant nothing, all that mattered in the end was completign the main quest.

Of course the game was linear, it had a plot. If you have a story then you tend to have a begining, middle and end which equals linearity.

Most of the quests don't effect your ability to complete the game (unless you get killed trying) they are mainly there to stretch the game out and to give an illusion of non-linear game play as well as supply alternate paths for the different character types who can't always take the easiest route through the game. Being able to wipe out whole towns is an option, but not really an integral part of the game, maybe if the setting was anything but a Post Apoc. world where people were more concerned about your actions/appearance etc rather than just survival but in Fallout every one is too busy looking out for themselves to worry too much about what you did in another town.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:If we Fallout 3 were to adopt a Deus Ex style system of combat then factors such as line of sight, darkness and sound level would all need to be considered. How could you move silently when wearing clunky power armour, or walk through a room full of people in borad daylight without being noticed.

It would be nice to have such factors influencing combat but they really belong in a more combat orientated game, to be honest the combat system doesn't really matter in an RPG, since they rely on the player stats then you could have a game where you pick your weapon then have something like the auto resolve option in JA2. If the rest of the game was well designed and had plenty of puzzles that needed a bit of thought on the players part then it would work just as well.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:Fallout 3 in a single location? are we talking a humungous city with multiple levels and many sectors (eg a city with many multistoryed buildings, sewers, basements all next to a vault) or a chain of locations close together like the NCR Empire

Imagine if you recreated LA, okay some of it would be still radiated from the Masters demise but plenty of LA would still be standing, you could have areas where people had set up communities surrounded by the ruined city. With some quests taking you out into the wasteland but most of the story centered in the city.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:requiem made a good point that most of the quests are for lower intelligence characters, although this contradicts what i said earlier it does higlight that the game is too linear. Very little of what you do has a profound effect on the outcome of the game, you can murder everything with a pulse and still blunder your way through the game and save the world. and if all else fails wander the map till you find the right places. Good, evil, size, shape, clothing, reputation, should all affect what kind of game you play, in fallout and to a greater extent in f2 all this meant nothing, all that mattered in the end was completign the main quest.

Eh... no. How you played the game had a significant effect on the ending. Fo1 & 2 show different endings for almost every location in the game, which will vary wildly based on what you did for (or to) those places. Yes, you can "murder everything with a pulse" (and a fair amount of things that don't have pulses) and finish the game. You can. You can also do all the quests, help people as much as possible, be a greedy bastard, or most anything else. Fallout 1 even let you join the Master if you wanted to. That's the key phrase. If you want to.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:If we Fallout 3 were to adopt a Deus Ex style system of combat then factors such as line of sight, darkness and sound level would all need to be considered. How could you move silently when wearing clunky power armour, or walk through a room full of people in borad daylight without being noticed.

You're right, having stuff like this would be great! It's a good thing it's already in Fallout. Light level affects how far you can shoot accurately and how well you can sneak and you can't shoot around corners. It is true that (AFAIK) heavy armor doesn't affect sneaking in the RPGs, although Micro Forte did implement this in FOT, so kudos to them.

Spazmo wrote:

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:If we Fallout 3 were to adopt a Deus Ex style system of combat then factors such as line of sight, darkness and sound level would all need to be considered. How could you move silently when wearing clunky power armour, or walk through a room full of people in borad daylight without being noticed.

You're right, having stuff like this would be great! It's a good thing it's already in Fallout. Light level affects how far you can shoot accurately and how well you can sneak and you can't shoot around corners. It is true that (AFAIK) heavy armor doesn't affect sneaking in the RPGs, although Micro Forte did implement this in FOT, so kudos to them.

Although all of these things are just small featurs, they are not so improtant as the other key factors.
Being able to crouch or go prone and take advantage of tactical elements is fun and should be implemented, but is not crucial for Fallout 3 to be a good game.

Theres night in the Fallout games?!?!? and it affects sneak and combat??? wow i never knew thank you for phrasing your comment in such a pedantic way, i would never have known if you hadn't told me. (sarcasm)

Well now that i have got that out of my system, turn based combat for the most part in Fallout defies logic. A group of enemies can be mulling around when you run in inbetween them, whip out your minigun and shoot each and everyone of them before they have a chance to return fire. Even in an roleplay world this is a leap of faith, what about the possibility of about simulatious turn based combat based on sequence checks and other factors.
**rough idea** whoever intiates combat has the first shot, but once that has happened it then a player must make a sucessful sequence check against the opponents in order to continue firing. each time the attacking character gets a sucessful attack they must make another sequence check but at BASE-1, then -2 and so on until they fail the check and their opponent gets to fire. The proper system would be more indepth and make sense but you get the general point.

It hardly makes sense to massacare entrie rooms full of people before they even know you are there no matter how skilled you are. Sneaking, light levels and awarenss of enemies would affect this.

...and a series is only as good as its last effort. Although Fallout was a great game, it was followed by two very poor followups and you cannot preach the greatness of Fallout and at the same time ignore Fallout 2 & Tactics.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:Well now that i have got that out of my system, turn based combat for the most part in Fallout defies logic.

But it doesn't defy logic, that they are using vaccuum tubes on computers in the 23rd century and that people are packing portable railguns, plasma & laser weaponry?

***speaking from the perspective of someone in the 17th century*** people moving around in horseless carriages, guns firing 4000 bullets a minute, having organs replaced, a box thats shows movving pictures.... all this in the 21st century?!?!?!?!? madness i say, madness!!!!

***back to normal*** Maybe not real time combat in Fallout 3 but something a little more realisitc. Simultaneous turn based at least comrpomises between the playing styles

Kashluk wrote: that they are using vaccuum tubes on computers in the 23rd century

Reading is a notable skill, even for such fine and intelligent people like you, SBB.

I think most people have lost many points of iq through playing the Fallout series. I guess i was wrong to suggest ideas on how to improve the series.

You can always suggest, dear SBB. But be prepared that people might not like the way you're beating your opinions through their skulls with a sledge hammer. It just ain't the appropriate way to go. If you want people to swallow it, make it small and greasy - that simple.

its a little hard not be be aggresive when it comes to bringing my point across when people, rather than criticising my ideas. attack me.

The main point of this topic was to think outside of 'the box' when it comes to making a sequal. If all people really want is cosmetic changes then petition BIS and Interplay to make an expansion pack for Fallout not another sequal. exactly hwo do people know that majors changes will ruin the series??? .....other games, well just because another game sux because of some changes doesnt mean the Fallout series would. You can quote other rpgs till your hearts content but until a desginers trys them on Fallout then you will never know whether they are the change that it so sorely needs.

Maybe another post needs to be made with a summary of all the proposed changes and their positive and negative points because i think has really gone overboard.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:its a little hard not be be aggresive when it comes to bringing my point across when people, rather than criticising my ideas. attack me.

You haven't been attacked, why is when people don't agree with a posters point of view they automatically think they are being attacked????

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:The main point of this topic was to think outside of 'the box' when it comes to making a sequal. If all people really want is cosmetic changes then petition BIS and Interplay to make an expansion pack for Fallout not another sequal. exactly hwo do people know that majors changes will ruin the series??? .....other games, well just because another game sux because of some changes doesnt mean the Fallout series would. You can quote other rpgs till your hearts content but until a desginers trys them on Fallout then you will never know whether they are the change that it so sorely needs.

Well most of what you've posted has already been suggested before, or is already available. The rest of the changes you suggest i.e. to the combat system are purely cosmetic and wouldn't really add anything notable to the game.

A few more points I'd like to comment.

Spazmo wrote:The bulk of the combat in Fallout involves ranged weapons, and ranged weapons in real time DOES NOT WORK, as has been proved by Arcanum and Another War. And having an option between turn-based and real-time willl only lead to two quite unsatisfactory modes. See, again, Arcanum. Having to fuck around with a camera is just a pain in the ass and detracts from gameplay. And here's a free game design tip: COMPEX INTERFACE = BAD.

I haven't played Another War but I think the bad combat system in Arcanum was just bad implementation. Even melee combat and magic usage was messy. Fallout tactics has a fairly good real-time(or CTB) combat system. It uses automatic firing modes(for example, if there's a 66% chance to hit an enemy, the character shoots automatically at the target). Of course, I wont deny the fact that turn-based is a lot better than real-time when it comes to ranged weapons.

Skynet wrote:Although i can complete the game with my melee charcters there is so little too it. Without enough intelligence or speech i cant give the right responses or get the good quests, although eventually i can gain the skills and do the quests, it takes longer and is less fulfilling. you need in game brains to get far, and even if your character is a complete moron you can still get through the game because there are permenant quests that you can always do.

Have you tried to play a 'stupid' character? Fallout(and Arcanum?) is the only CRPG I've played who has done this aspect properly. You can't find that in Baldur's Gate, for example. The dialogue is a bit hard to follow sometimes, but well worth trying just for laughs. Sure, it's more challenging than a 'normal game' and you'll miss a lot of the quests, but I think that's because Intelligence is a way too important attribute in Fallout. Low INT punishes character development(skill points) severely. That's something what needs to be balanced in Fallout 3. I also think that Fallout 3 should have the possibility to play a stupid character, and wouldn't it be great if INT 10 characters would use a lot of scientific terms and sofisticated phrases in their dialogue? That would give each playthrough more variety.

the same fella wrote:If we Fallout 3 were to adopt a Deus Ex style system of combat then factors such as line of sight, darkness and sound level would all need to be considered. How could you move silently when wearing clunky power armour, or walk through a room full of people in borad daylight without being noticed.

Indeed, I think those options would be well worth considering. I made a thread about visibility in Fallout a while ago, maybe it could give some ideas. Different environment factors make combat more tactical, if well implemented.

A simple solution: give 10 INT guys a british accent and <5 INT guys a redneck accent :D

i think its been establish that for Fallout to include anything non-american is some sort of deadly sin.

maybe that is one of its limitations, california is one state in one country, on a planet. The retro 50's elements worked in the first game but after Fallout 2 it was more a carry over than a defining element. If Fallout 3 is set after the first two games then most traces of this idealised 50's vault culture will be gone, comic pip-boy pictures or retro aspects. Thats why another sequal should/must be set in the period between the two games.

Fallout: Tactics covered Central USA. That didn't work very well though, the locations were pretty vague and too similar to each other. They didn't quite utilize all the potential. I personally don't care where in USA Fallout 3 takes place, as long as it doesn't hurt the game. West coast would be a safer and more familiar choice than, let's say east coast. Fallout and Fallout 2 didn't exactly cover the same area. Fallout 2 was set more north than the previous Fallout, still having some locations from the original game included. The next possible location has been discussed before and I think that Nevada or Washington state could be worthy options. Not too similar to the previous two, but not too far away either.

Skynet Brain Bot wrote:i think its been establish that for Fallout to include anything non-american is some sort of deadly sin.

maybe that is one of its limitations, california is one state in one country, on a planet. The retro 50's elements worked in the first game but after Fallout 2 it was more a carry over than a defining element. If Fallout 3 is set after the first two games then most traces of this idealised 50's vault culture will be gone, comic pip-boy pictures or retro aspects. Thats why another sequal should/must be set in the period between the two games.

What's that got to do anything?

FALLOUT IS SET FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A 50S PULP COMIC

That doesn't mean it has to a prequel they'd fuck up, as time doesn't have any meaning to the 50's atmosphere. It was sloppily done in fallout 2 because of speech, real-world weapons and easter eggs or something.

Is it really to hard for people to take the time to read through posts and gain an understanding of what they say?

Fallout 3 would not be a prequel simply take place between the two games, in a time where vaults are still opening, the wastses are still uncivilised, and lack any major form of unification like NCR.

The vaults are the main source of 50's retro/pulp comic references. In Fallout 2 and in Fallout 3 (if it is set after f2) the game was based more around the primative wastes and the retro atmosphere was gone.

We already have something between Fo1 and Fo2: the bastard child Fo:T. And we all know what came out of that pile of utter shit...

And anyways, making prequels of any kind is very hard. How to explain something that you can do in the prequel, but doesn't really have any effect on the game that was actually published before but is set on time after the prequel. It gets complicated, easier and better way to go is just to add sequel after sequel. Or then leap AGES back or forth. I mean, like centuries instead of decades, then it might even work.

Continue the disscusion.

No flames this time.

no need, i will summarise all the points in another post in a few days, and whats with me starting another topic depite me not starting another topic **confused**