Fallout I've just finished "Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game", and...

[jackofshadows]

General simplicity of combat options. 90% of the time in any given combat, you are going to be standing still and shooting at the mook

Or kite. Also you should prioritize targets which isn't easy for a new player.

In any case, simple = crap is a weird statement to me. Simple can be good as much as complicated can be total crap.

If you're playing a melee build you're going to be charging in and whacking them.

I'd say the opposite to charging but that refers to not so great AI and the reason why I personally don't really like melee in F1-2.

There's no status effects to inflict (other than Knockdown

RTFM, don't embarass yourself.

no interesting utility items to use that can manipulate the battlefield

Grenades/explosives/rocket launcher. Players tend to discard grenades because the games aren't that hard so it's barely worth investing in a separate skill just for that but they can do magic sometimes.

most damningly imo, never really much doubt about what is the optimal action to take on any given turn.

This can be said about any RPG with enough playing experience under the belt so I don't see the point at all.

Especially in FO1, there is an extremely linear item progression (e.g. with guns: pistol<shotgun<rifles<combat shotgun<sniper rifle<plasma rifle<turbo plasma rifle), and the fact that different weapons do different types of damage is, outside of EMP/electrical damage, completely irrelevant. Sure you can mix it up with a minigun or rocket launcher in there, but it's utterly unnecessary, and there's no meaningful tradeoff to doing so. The distinction between early game guns and late game guns is that the late game guns do more damage, end of story.

How on earth it's linear when you shoving different skill-related guns into one scale? The whole point of trading energy skill points for small guns is getting a better late game weapons while making life harder early. Moreover, big guns are working differently but you simply discarding them and yet there's at least one awesome possible trade-off with fast-shot trait. And boy they're fun but what am I even saying.

I honestly don't know how anyone can defend the way armor works in FO1; it is not only non-sensical, but straight up not fun. This horse has been beaten to death, so I don't feel much need to expand on it.

Please expand, I've no clue what's wrong with AC+DT/DR system at such seemingly fundamental level unless you're talking about critical hits.

Speaking of critical hits, let me address the always shoot in the eyes ez meme. Yes, shooting in the eyes is a great idea but from what I've seen even here only bunch of autists knows why exactly. I will not quote manual but here's reminder that the main thing is you're getting 60% crit chance bonus as a trade off for 1AP and accuracy penalty which is not a big deal most of the times. This is also a great option for any non-combat/hybrid build because you cannot get this huge bonus otherwise. But it's possible to either stack crit chance up to 35% or even get 100% with sniper perk in the very late game which obviously completely devaluate shooting in the eyes because 1 ap difference is a huge deal (even 2 with fast-shot).

Lack of relative skill parity. Do not misunderstand me, I am not arguing that all skills should be of equal value (pretty ambivalent about that). If the player opts to make a character with no combat skills tagged then the player should not be surprised that they have a difficult time with combat, but the player should not be punished by a lack of meta-game knowledge (e.g. a first time player tagging thrown weapons or energy weapons over small guns at chargen), and there should be some telegraphing if a skill is of objectively lesser value than others (eg. Doctor vs. First Aid). And yes, I know that technically you can complete FO1 in a pacifist run tagging Outdoorsman, Gambling, and Barter at chargen. That's cool that it's possible, but I don't find it particularly fun to play that way, and I don't think I'm alone there.

First, this barely refers to game's combat system in general and second, RTFM once again before complaining. There're some hints for Doctor vs First Aid, energy weapon scarcity and more for any newcomer. As well as general tips for char progression.

AI. It's pretty crap. It doesn't ruin the combat in of itself, but, taken in concert with the other issues listed above, it certainly contributes to the crappiness of combat.

In my book 'crap' means what you said can occur next. Ruining game's experience, devaluating other systems. Fallout's AI isn't great because it's too easy to abuse doors and corners vs it but overall it's perfectly fine.

Again, I think Fallout 1 is a great game, and I would easily put it in my top 10 RPGs of all time, but that's in spite of its garbage combat

I know it's RPG Codex and it might be pleasing to set the bar somewhere in the sky on par with the perfect RPG which was never released and declare that all the others are shit in comparison, even if just some particular aspect in this case.

Honestly, if I wouldn't know you a bit before I'd think this is a troll post and wouldn't bother to reply. But seems to me you just haven't played the F1-2 games enough (or RPGs with really crappy combat systems?) to fully comprehend and appreciate the quality of F1-2 combat system. WD, Styg and their teams built combat systems upon it and succeded in that tremendously.

 

[Sigourn]

In FO2, we get the exact opposite: we go from seeing a vault that is breaking down to seeing a thriving Vault City

I don't think this is a problem. The Vaults seen in Fallout 1, even though they were the rule (i.e. crappy design), were never advertised as crappy. So a thriving Vault City sort of makes sense.

Yep, it's actually the one Vault which is congruent with their presentation in the original game. Vault 15 simply became overcrowded (easily the result of logistical issues or an Overseer not exercising population control) and Vault 12's door not closing properly is never really presented as anything other than an unfortunate mistake. Ignoring all of the backstory involving the Enclave etc., Vault City feels like what Vault 13 could have become if not for the malfunctioning water chip and the events said malfunction caused.

Exactly. I think LOL VAULTS ARE EXPERIMENTS were the dumbest addition to the lore, even though I love Vault 11 (in spite of it being an homage to the Milgram experiment).

 

[Devastator]

90% of the time in any given combat, you are going to be standing still and shooting at the mook (possibly with VATS depending on your level).

Uhh, chief? You cannot attack any other way than by "using VATS". Are you confusing Fallout 1 with some Bethesda game? Yes, your non-aimed attacks do not open the targeting menu, but they still consume action points. VATS is a Bethesda marketing gimmick... It doesn't exist in Fallout 1.

There's no status effects to inflict (other than Knockdown, which I'm not sure I would count)

Pure sacrilege!
You can blind people (eye damage). You can cripple their limbs. You can also knock them unconscious with head damage. You yourself can receive these effects, plus poisoned, radiated, encumbered...

Especially in FO1, there is an extremely linear item progression (e.g. with guns: pistol<shotgun<rifles<combat shotgun<sniper rifle<plasma rifle<turbo plasma rifle).

I think the devs themselves said the progression is: Small guns (early game) -> big guns -> energy weapons (late game). Yes, it is linear. So what? Why is it bad?

and the fact that different weapons do different types of damage is, outside of EMP/electrical damage, completely irrelevant.

So you are saying you would go against BoS (considering the T51b resistances) with laser damage weapons instead of plasma or normal damage ones?

Sure you can mix it up with a minigun or rocket launcher in there, but it's utterly unnecessary, and there's no meaningful tradeoff to doing so.

I think people usually skip Big Guns unless they just want some cool death effects. So it is more or less just the fun factor. Not really a trade-off at all, but still not to be completely neglected.

I honestly don't know how anyone can defend the way armor works in FO1; it is not only non-sensical, but straight up not fun.

Armor in Fallout is silly, yes. On the other hand, armor doesn't really matter if you get 10 Luck, Sniper and Better Criticals.

there should be some telegraphing if a skill is of objectively lesser value than others (eg. Doctor vs. First Aid).

Yes, but this could be said for so many RPGs. Another thing is that - once you have metagame knowledge - it is pointless to spend a single point in First Aid, Outdoorsman, Science, Repair, and (depending on build) Small Guns. You can just buy endless books in The Hub. With all the loot you find there is no problem getting these skills to 80+ with books.
Barter is also pretty redundant because Gambling at 60 or so is basically game breaking. Just spend some time in a casino and you'll have more money than you can ever spend.

AI. It's pretty crap. It doesn't ruin the combat in of itself, but, taken in concert with the other issues listed above, it certainly contributes to the crappiness of combat.

I wouldn't call it bad at all. Especially compared to other games of that era.

Somewhat ironically, FO2 fixed a lot of the problems listed above, but the content of the game was so vastly inferior (with the first third of the game being a particular offender) that it didn't really matter.

I actually think it didn't fix a whole lot at all. As far as the content goes, the constant pop culture references really got on my nerves. Fallout 1 had enough of them, Fallout 2 just overdid it all by trying to be funny or something.

UI.

I love the UI for two reasons: 1) The "hold down mouse button" context menu is so sexy it is hard to describe. 2) The UI gives noobs problems, which has been really amusing to me over the years.

Again, I think Fallout 1 is a great game, and I would easily put it in my top 10 RPGs of all time, but that's in spite of its garbage combat (and I do think calling it the RPGOAT is nuts).

It should be in the top 5.

 

[BarãodoDesterro]

Fallout is a good game.

Definitely agree.

No. These are "Fallout themed games"

There probably are other threads addressing that. I can notice the feeling and the differences (if subtle).

You do know that combat is basically optional in Fallout (i.e. you can do a pacifist run if you ignore the fact that you may have to set off a nuke at the end)? The beauty of Fallout is that it can be anything you want it to be. Why settle for dribbling?

I won't say I've settled for a pacifist run (because I would not even know how to), but my avatar was, in his first steps, a nice guy that tried to negotiate (I have not killed the Khans, for instance); by the end, he was a cold killer (executed anyone using purple mantles, did not warn that the base was going to explode, shot Jacoren) that did not kill the master (convinced him that mutants are sterile) only because I (the actual guy controlling) was lazy. That is nice about the setting, I can feel the roleplay progression.

See my previous point. Going to The Glow is worth it because you can finally relax and play a game of chess with an AI. Plenty of background radiation, no one alive nearby, all robots powered off, backpack full of drugs. If that is not relaxing, what is?

Bro, I can respect that.

Indeed. It also shows the author is Brazilian. He doesn't merely put parenthesis inside his parenthesis, he puts curly brackets inside brackets inside parenthesis, like this: ([{}]). Do you know where the only place AFAIK where this is taught as the proper method in writing and math? In Brazil. Because I was taught to do it too. Not that his name doesn't say "brazilian", but it shows he is genuinely one and not a troll pretending to be. Althrough it still looks like a troll.

Well, being a Brazilian myself, iirc the right order actually is {[()]}. At least in math...

Not a troll at all (if this is not what a troll would say).

I think Darth Slaughter is correct (at least about middle/high school math). The thing is, I was (still am) an inveterate user of "aposto" (the translation is not "I bet") when in middle school ("aposto" is, I guess, the exact technique I just used when I used ", I guess,"). Then, when in high school, I started using parenthesis, ":", ";" and "—", always trying to create texts that look more like a discourse (that, more or less, emulate talking). When I started graduation, I faced the empire of conjunctions: considering that the conjunctions used are archaic, and that the intertwined sentences are shallow, I could only assume, not ironically, that people spend more time searching conjunctions and "firulas" than writing the in betweens.

Then I developed this way of writing... can imagine most of the grammars would disagree, though.

How do we keep generating these threads? There's at least one every year. Who's that autistic guy with weird spelling?

That is the magic of classics, every single kid that plays the game wants to discuss it (even if a quarter of century late).