Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Burn the decline! Kill the doritos! Purge the Popamole! What was decline in original Fallouts?

vitamin

Augur
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
199
I also think that Fallout games don't need more tactical combat mechanism. Their combat system is OK - the problem is with unbalanced weapons, ammo and armor stats and the way chances to hit are being calculated. And those things need adjustments for sure. But making VB a FoT or JA2 clone is not a good idea IMO (let's not forget that Fallout games are not party based RPG's).
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
3,144
Now what's so wrong with that?

Don't think there's anything wrong, but most of the people here subscribe to the Sawyeristic mantra that if it's included in the gameplay, it should be fun to do. So ideally you'd have both the interesting non-combat gameplay you describe, and interesting combat too. I know your point is that if you have limited resources you should spend them on the type of gameplay to be used most, which you'd like to be non-combat, but in the extremely unlikely event of these guys finishing this mod, the vast majority of the insane amount of maps will be populated by hostiles for you to mop up. So I think a focus on making combat interesting makes sense.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,473
Location
Copenhagen
Is it a Sawyeristic mantra that combat should be an engaging part of a game with lots of combat now? :lol:

Honestly, I think the guys who made the original Fallouts also wanted fun combat. And they succeded in quite a few ways. There's nothing wrong with using history to improve some aspects of it, is there?
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
3,144
Is it a Sawyeristic mantra that combat should be an engaging part of a game with lots of combat now? :lol:

I think tuluse put it very well a while ago when he said that the design focus of Cain was an abundance of different approaches to the problems facing you in the game, without each of these approaches necessarily being very compelling in isolation: the variety itself is what makes the game interesting. Sawyer's is that each approach needs to be compelling by itself, even if that comes at the cost of limiting the amount of choices the player has.

And I think that was Kaucukovnik's point: it shouldn't necessarily be "a game with lots of combat", but one where combat is just one of a wide variety of possible approaches, and therefor shouldn't be afforded primacy in the design-process.

My point was that for this type of mod (especially given the insane scale) you are better off with going with the Sawyer approach: accept that combat will inevitably be the focus and concentrate on making that interesting.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,473
Location
Copenhagen
Is it a Sawyeristic mantra that combat should be an engaging part of a game with lots of combat now? :lol:

I think tuluse put it very well a while ago when he said that the design focus of Cain was an abundance of different approaches to the problems facing you in the game, without each of these approaches necessarily being very compelling in isolation: the variety itself is what makes the game interesting. Sawyer's is that each approach needs to be compelling by itself, even if that comes at the cost of limiting the amount of choices the player has.

And I think that was Kaucukovnik's point: it shouldn't necessarily be "a game with lots of combat", but one where combat is just one of a wide variety of possible approaches, and therefor shouldn't be afforded primacy in the design-process.

My point was that for this type of mod (especially given the insane scale) you are better off with going with the Sawyer approach: accept that combat will inevitably be the focus and concentrate on making that interesting.

I think you're reading too much into my comments on combat. I don't expect this to be the next Jagged Alliance or anything, I'm saying that this is a thread about what could easily be changed about Fallout. A bit of cleaning up in the combat department would do the game a lot of good. Again; there's a good basis for some fun n' simple combat there. The combat in Fallout mostly gets sucky because the variety scales a bit downwards, there are some good things about. Making the choices between where to aim meaningful is a good and very simple start towards more diverse combat!

Unlike some people in the PoE-thread, I have no intention of changing a game into another game because I like the other game more ;)
 
Last edited:

hiver

Guest
kaucukovniks post is one of those made because he panics.

There is a huge, huge difference between improving what is there - and making a JA2 clone.
People like kauc... kaucukovnik basically get frightened that improving combat will mean the other content will be minimized.

So they immediately go into argument ad absurdium teritory by overblowing it all int - MAKING A JA2 CLONE!!!
- that just repeats itself every once in a while. I couldnt make a fing post about combat on w2 forums, for example, without it being spammed with NO JA2 CLONE!!! knee jerk spasms.




While the truth is that all aspects of the game should be similarly improved. Non- combat gameplay as much as combat gameplay.
 

vitamin

Augur
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
199
it shouldn't necessarily be "a game with lots of combat", but one where combat is just one of a wide variety of possible approaches, and therefor shouldn't be afforded primacy in the design-process.
That's exactly my kind of opinion on Fallout games. I really like having possibilities to complete quests using both combat and peaceful methods. These games give player open hand in acting without forcing to do things in only one straightforward way.

But back on topic - things I don't like and would change in Fallouts:
- making the world much more poor in resources (weapons, ammo, armor, money, stimpacks)
- adding crafting as primary source of acquiring items in early to late mid stages
- skills like sneak, first aid, doctor should have more important role in gameplay
- some skills could be make dependent on each other (e.g. repair and science, first aid and doctor)
- adding more difficult quests

EDIT:
I forgot about three things:
- stealing is way too easy
- would be nice to have possibility to hire some NPC (for money or some special item or after doing some services to them) to help solving player's quests
- making game more difficult in terms of gaining skill points (making almost impossible to build a character that can do everything by himself even in final stages)
 
Last edited:

hiver

Guest
Actually, since my idea about unique medicine skill seems to be generally accepted, - a great part of it is using it more in gameplay, as additional options inside quests, to affect NPCs and situations with it.

Which ties into the question of overabundance of various items, in this case - medical items such as stimpacks and others of that kind.
- If there is less of them - the role of medical skill increases in importance automatically. Which would play excellently with other gameplay options becoming available from it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

vitamin

Augur
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
199
Three more changes to Fallout games:
- making not possible to switch slots when holding 2-hand weapons
- heavy armor should give penalties to agility (and perception maybe either)
- when hit points drop below some level (1/3?) not possible to auto heal
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
3,144
- making not possible to switch slots when holding 2-hand weapons

If they can they should just switch to the FO1-gurps interface: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=A8Pndi6cLyo#t=27

There's even a version of the old diagonally split weapon box included in fallout (IFACE.frm), so I guess all you'd need to do (graphically) is split it in two for 1-handed weapons.

- when hit points drop below some level (1/3?) not possible to auto heal

Meh, seems to needlessly kick people who only just survived a tough fight in the balls while rewarding those for easy fights. Besides, it's not like having below 1/3 hp represents having harder to heal wounds than 1/2 hp: the former could just have a load of minor injuries, while the latter has one real nasty one*. Better off just having resource-driven healing for everything.

*that is, of course, if you treat HP as health, if it's just survivability then who knows what kind of approach you should take to restoring it.
 

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,914
- easter eggs made fallout into parody.

In fallout 1 dark humor was integral part of game but it was mainly used as a contrast to harsh world. Which means world was completely separate from dark humor which was mostly in character sheet.

In fallout 2 they took that concept and run it to the ground with ton of jokes here and there. Fallout 2 didn't have any separation which completely nullified dark humor point.

Fallout 3 and NV continued that scheme even more and game became literally parody of post numclear game filled with quests, lore and stuff to make player laugh.
 

agris

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
6,867
Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
Fallout GURPS. Make it so!
dha9n4.jpg
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom