Preview Fallout 3 'addicting as Jet sprinkled on an Iguana-stick'

[shihonage]

No idea, I saw this discovery made by another Fallout playing guy.

 

[Armacalypse]

Those are still not choices you make in combat. They are choices you make before combat.

If you have the most detailed character customization imaginable, but really simple and completely uninteractive combat, would you call the combat system good? No, you would call the character system awesome, and the combat system poor, like it is in Fallout.

 

[shihonage]

One can't cleanly separate combat from the rest of the game when it utilizes character properties and various laws that are part of the game.

You can try, but shortly thereafter the argument will degrade into utterly moronic.

Such as, where does the combat start, really, if you see a group of enemies in Doom facing away, and you come to their side to down them all with one shotgun blast, this is clearly a combat decision made BEFORE combat, oh wait it isn't, because it was clearly a strategic combat decision that helped you kill them OMG WTF BBQ ?!?

Let's not go there, the hairs are too thin to split.

The end result of the whole is that you just can't compare FPS combat to Fallout at all. It's a silly thing to do. Not just because of depth (some FPS have a surprising amount of depth, like Quake Wars), but because the mechanics and required skills are completely different.

Fallout was a thinking man's game. An RPG. A true RPG never requires twitch reflexes to win in combat mode. Different mechanics, different goals, everything different. Apples and oranges.

I just wanted to remove Doom and Doom-likes from this comparison because it was quickly heading the way of nonsense, complete babylon.

 

[elander_]

Fallout 3 VATS is a dumbed down version of Fallout combat. You don't have different attack modes like burst or single shot because you can only shot one enemy at a time. Even the minigun only shots one enemy at a time, using that weapon as a riffle when it is supposed to be used to kill multiple enemies with one shot. Didn't heard anything about the player or enemies whose bodies are partially covered having lower chances to hit like in Fallout. Grenades can't be throw inside houses or to places in the floor and have to be targeted at someone. The point of using grenades is that they bounce on walls or can be used to attack enemies in closed spaces or completely covered who can't be targeted directly. You can't use melee or empty hands to do criticals which is the single best reason to play using these combat styles. You can't place timed explosives. You can't use a flame thrower to burn multiple enemies. That's only what i remember at the moment.

It's a waste to time to compare Fallout 3 to DeusEx or System Shock 2 considering that these games offer even more possibilities than Fallout.

An RPG. A true RPG never requires twitch reflexes to win in combat mode. Different mechanics, different goals, everything different. Apples and oranges.

I have to disagree with this, but i agree that Fallout was a thinking man game and was the kind of rpg you are describing. It's obvious this was the original devs intention from the beginning and never to create a mix of action and rpg.

 

[Armacalypse]

Yeah, but the comparison of Fallout vs Doom was required to show that the combat in F3 doesn't necessarily have to be worse than the combat in F1-2, since both combat systems are very simple. Just allowing the player to duck behind cover might make the combat more tactical in F3 than in F1-2.

But I am almost convinced that in F3 everything outside the combat, like the decisions you make before combat, will be alot worse than in F1-2.

A true RPG never requires twitch reflexes to win in combat mode.

This is my definition of a true strategy game. But a true RPG? I don't know. I guess there can be both strategy-RPGs and ARPGs.

Edit: I'm not taking VATS into consideration in any way, since I don't exactly know how that works. I am writing about the normal shooter mechanics in Fallout 3, and how it would be without using VATS.

 

[shihonage]

A true RPG relies on character's twitch skill, not on player's twitch skill. It's rather axiomic.

I enjoyed Diablo series very much, but they were an ARPG. They cannot replace a game with Fallout-like mechanics.

Fallout 3 VATS is a dumbed down version of Fallout combat. You don't have different attack modes like burst or single shot because you can only shot one enemy at a time. Even the minigun only shots one enemy at a time, using that weapon as a riffle when it is supposed to be used to kill multiple enemies with one shot. Didn't heard anything about the player or enemies whose bodies are partially covered having lower chances to hit like in Fallout. Grenades can't be throw inside houses or to places in the floor and have to be targeted at someone.

I was wondering about BURST in Fallout3 and whether it can affect multiple enemies. If it doesn't... fail.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yeah, but the comparison of Fallout vs Doom was required to show that the combat in F3 doesn't necessarily have to be worse than the combat in F1-2

That's a pointless, academic point, though, and if it's something you're trying to keep in mind out of misguided pseudo-scientific-ness then you're delusional.

 

[Armacalypse]

Yeah, but the comparison of Fallout vs Doom was required to show that the combat in F3 doesn't necessarily have to be worse than the combat in F1-2

That's a pointless, academic point, though, and if it's something you're trying to keep in mind out of misguided pseudo-scientific-ness then you're delusional.

Yeah, fuck, it's a game. Either you enjoy it or you don't.

But everyone else argues like this, with objective truths and whatnot. It seems to be the Codex Way, and I just float along.

A true RPG relies on character's twitch skill, not on player's twitch skill. It's rather axiomic.

This is what I mean KC. Objective truths.

 

[Athiska]

To refresh your memory, the quote that started this petty argument:

Oh, for fuck's sake. You are as retarded as the console fanboys defending the RP in Oblivion and JRPGs.
Combat in Fallout 1-2 is more simplistic than any shooter out there. It's like Doom but without the action, and it's as deep as the conversation wheel in Oblivion. It requires neither thinking nor reflexes.
But isn't that what you want anyway? A purposely bad combat system making combat all about the skill of the character, and leaving player skill or intelligence out of it?
But the combat system in Fallout 3 might actually be better (for good or bad...), since it might atleast require some player skill, in the form of reflexes.

I've thought that the main difference between tactics is the use of third-person or first person views-- isometric or FPS. A better example (of course of my opinion), would be to compare tactics used in Half-Life instead of Doom. It's still a poor choice.
Even if Fallout 3 offers a duck-and-cover/roll tactic, it's still at the mercy of the player who should have the dexterity to act on it immediately, without knowing where his enemies are and how they've reacted. In a third-person perspective game, you'll know how many enemies will be affected provided everything goes well. Unless a game offers both the FPS perspective of Fallout 3/Oblivion and the third-person perspective (where the camera isn't centered on the character or party), I don't think Armacalypse's idea of "player skill" is feasible.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

And, er, who here has said Fallout's combat was perfect, anyway?

I have. Most of the people who whinge about Fallout's combat are you're usual "duh, dis gaem needem thinkums dat maek hed hert" people who'd be better off playing CoD4. You'll note Armacalypse and Letum Fol are both having great difficulty actually saying what exactly is wrong with Fallout's combat other than "it's boring", which seems to stem from the fact that you don't get to twitch enough.

Even with such a character, I don't see the overwhelming number of options at your disposal. Sure, you could do things like run behind a wall and wait for the enemy to come to shotgun range, or you could use some items to help you. But you can do that in most shooters too.

Really? You can kill people in shooters too? The mind boggles.

Yes, player skill will always be there. In the end you have to "LARP" if you want your character to choose the really stupid dialogue options

Actually your character's INT decided your dialogue options. The dumb ones were available when you went below 4.

Look at all the sad little boys defending Fallout combat. Seriously, have any of you played X-Com. Or Silent Storm, Jagged Alliance 2, and TOEE. They seem to be discussed a lot here but if anyone calls FO combat "deep" after having played them, then there's something very wrong here.

I haven't played Jagged Alliance 2 but ToEE, Silent Storm and X-Com I played to death. Funnily enough, X-Com involves moving your guys around and shooting too. They could crouch though but it's only really done to improve their aim... Oh and you could walk behind a wall and use the "cover" and wait until the aliens walked up to you like you can in Fallout. You couldn't target limbs though. You just have "spend lots of AP on an aimed shot and hope you hit" versus "fire in the general direction and hope you hit" usually before walking back behind the wall you're shooting from behind.

The rest of those games were released several years after Fallout. The big "tactic" about Silent Storm was probably the destructable environment as for the most part, you also did little other than moving and shooting or staying still with a machine-gun and waiting for them to come to you.

I pointed out the things you can do in Fallout combat that you can do in shooters too.

Really? How many shooters are around today that allow me to specifically target the enemy's eyes and blind him? Target his arms to make him drop his weapon or damage his legs to make him walk slower? Doom didn't let you do that and yet Fallout did. So it seems there's quite a bit you can do in Fallout that you can't do in Doom. As for situational weapons in Doom, I assume you mean things like using the Chaingun on the Red-Eye floating things (I never remember what they're called) so they don't get a chance to attack back? Hmmm... Sounds kinda similar to shooting the arm out so they drop their weapon or knocking them unconscious to achieve a similar effect (IE: The bad guy can't shoot back). Seriously damaged enemies also ran away in Fallout. Nothing ever ran away in Doom, no matter how wounded it was. Except those bull things, but they just ran away in general.

Then there's the whole armour issue. You see, various different types of armour have different types of weaknesses in Fallout. Laser, Fire, Plasma, Explosive resistance and thresholds vs damage caused by different weapons. So some weapons do work a lot better on some enemies than others. Likewise your own choice during combat is if you find yourself being blasted with Laser weapons, you can slip on the Tesla armour for that bit of extra laser and plasma protection (even more than what was provided by the Power Armour). In Doom, you've either got armour or you don't and different weapons didn't cause different types of damage. In short, Fallout actually provides a lot more combat options during combat than Doom and even a lot of modern shooters like Crysis provide.

Your comment that "it's like Doom but without the action" seems to belie your real interest. You just didn't like the fact you had to think about your shots (or at least, that opportunity was provided for you if you wanted to take it). You even went on "But the combat system in Fallout 3 might actually be better (for good or bad...), since it might atleast require some player skill, in the form of reflexes." Better because it uses your twitch skills. Honestly, I think you just had difficulty taking on the Gunrunners with a pistol and leather armour because doing anything else required too much thought for you.

 

[Letum Fol]

I have. Most of the people who whinge about Fallout's combat are you're usual "duh, dis gaem needem thinkums dat maek hed hert" people who'd be better off playing CoD4. You'll note Armacalypse and Letum Fol are both having great difficulty actually saying what exactly is wrong with Fallout's combat other than "it's boring", which seems to stem from the fact that you don't get to twitch enough.

I never once mentioned twitch. My dislike with Fallout's combat has nothing to do with its lack of twitch, in fact, it's quite the opposite. The problem is that there is little place for strategy or tactics at all since the game is so easy and the system so simple. So actually, it's that the game didn't "needem thinkums"

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Then the one thing those other games you mentioned have that make them more tactical are multiple controllable party members. In X-Com, you're coaxing your team through a crashed alien spaceship, one guy's probably circling round the back. Silent Storm had you moving into covering positions, setting up an all-out assault with machine-guns for the approaching German guards or just ensuring you had enough firepower on hand to take down a Panzerklein. Then there's Jagged Alliance 2 and ToEE which again had you controlling an entire group. Getting the guy with the big weapon close enough, supporting him with healing from one team member while another casts spells at something else to buy some more time. In which case they were all designed to be tactical squad-based combat games, which Fallout wasn't meant to be.

 

[Letum Fol]

Then the one thing those other games you mentioned have that make them more tactical are multiple controllable party members.

Good point. That is actually what gives most turn-based games their depth and something that I've been wishing FO1/2 had for as long as I can remember. The lack of party control exponentially reduces your combat options. And its not like the NPCs were particularly deep so the trade off wasn't really worth it.

What freaks me out the most is that we've been arguing about combat in Fallout all this time and nobody's mentioned how there's so much more to Fallout than combat, how its not even near the most important component of the game.

 

[J1M]

I have. Most of the people who whinge about Fallout's combat are you're usual "duh, dis gaem needem thinkums dat maek hed hert" people who'd be better off playing CoD4. You'll note Armacalypse and Letum Fol are both having great difficulty actually saying what exactly is wrong with Fallout's combat other than "it's boring", which seems to stem from the fact that you don't get to twitch enough.

I never once mentioned twitch. My dislike with Fallout's combat has nothing to do with its lack of twitch, in fact, it's quite the opposite.

So fallout combat has too much twitch... ok, I guess you are right and everyone else is wrong about everything.

 

[Letum Fol]

I never once mentioned twitch. My dislike with Fallout's combat has nothing to do with its lack of twitch, in fact, it's quite the opposite.
So fallout combat has too much twitch... ok, I guess you are right and everyone else is wrong about everything.

facepalm. That's all I can say when faced with such blatant stupidity.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

facepalm. That's all I can say when faced with such blatant stupidity.

You got a mirror next to your computer now?

 

[Claw]

Oh man, attack of the trolls.

Can't we close the floodgates and at least close registration until Bethout has been released for six months?

 

[Jaesun]

Before we finish your registration on The RPG Codex, we have one final question for you.

Is Bethesda the greatest, innovative epic game developer of all time?

You have answered yes. You have been successfully banned from the RPG Codex. Have a nice day!

 

[Shannow]

Oh man, attack of the trolls.

Can't we close the floodgates and at least close registration until Bethout has been released for six months?

Hadn't you heard?

Why exactly do you all try to argue with the troll? And more importantly: why do you fail so miserably?

If I had actually been arguing with a troll I could answer this question.

There be no trolls here.

Anyway, denying new angry cunts registration because of some pathetic trolls means that the terrorists have won, imho.

:ilovefallout3.org:

 

[Armacalypse]

To refresh your memory, the quote that started this petty argument:

No, Letum Fol started the discussion on page one. I compared Fallout to shooters as an argument in the already existing discussion.

And DU, ofcourse the lack of multiple party members is part of the problem.

In which case they were all designed to be tactical squad-based combat games, which Fallout wasn't meant to be.

Well, Fallout 3 wasn't meant to be smart. That doesn't mean it's not bad.

Comparing complexity of games can be hard, so I won't compare Fallout to Doom any more. But I get the impression that some of you believe that if you add twitch to a game it somehow removes tactical complexity, which is absurd. It might make it harder to discover the tactics, but it doesn't remove them.

But getting the original point: I still don't think Fallout 3's combat system have to be worse than the ones in Fallout 1-2. VATS might screw up the balance pretty bad though.

 

[Athiska]

Letum Fol wasn't posting at the time; I was referring to when you started as it was more current.

Does there exist an FPS that makes it clear that the player should use tactics instead of the blazing guns school of killing? Besides the lone sniper.

 

[J1M]

Letum Fol wasn't posting at the time; I was referring to when you started as it was more current.

Does there exist an FPS that makes it clear that the player should use tactics instead of the blazing guns school of killing? Besides the lone sniper.

Of course there is. What a stupid question. You are stupid for asking it.

 

[Armacalypse]

Letum Fol wasn't posting at the time; I was referring to when you started as it was more current.

Does that make me a necro-arguer?

Does there exist an FPS that makes it clear that the player should use tactics instead of the blazing guns school of killing? Besides the lone sniper.

I have no idea how being a sniper makes the game more tactical. But does Fallout make it "clear" that you should "use tactics instead of the blazing guns shool of killing"?

 

[Letum Fol]

@DU
Sorta off topic, but you owe it to yourself to play Jagged Alliance 2 especially if you liked all those other games.

 

[AzraelCC]

I like party based combat as much as the next Codex guy, but the problem with such combat is it doesn't really allow you to roleplay. It is still a leftover from the wargaming roots of RPGs. Other systems in place within RPGs have been improved or explored by the good RPGs--dialog, choice and consequence, free roaming world. BUt consider that when you're in a combat situation, can you really control your allies to such an accurate degree that every spell, position, tactic used is orchestrated by you?

That's why I think JA2 has a more 'role-playing' combat system than BG, Icewind Dale or even Betrayal at Krondor. Mercs are actually characters. Some may go berserk or refuse to go into combat with an ally they don't like. While it still is party combat, role actually figures into the combat.

As for games that allow you to have non-controllable allies, such games often have AIs so stupid that hardly any roleplaying is involved. Even the first Fallout had that (and FO3 will most probably have this problem too).