Fallout 3 showing at E3

[extarbags]

Well, just this:

http://www.crappiehour.com/images/f3.jpg

But it's still better than last year.

[Ben Sones]

Uhm...

[instant0]

Pipboy!!!

How I have missed thee!

[Ed Solomon]

A big blank space? Surprisingly, given your forum name is extarbags, I find your humor too subtle.

[extarbags]

Fixed now.

[nKoan]

Any other info, or just that?

[extarbags]

Just that.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

I predict, simply from this poster, that this game will [be more awesome than every other video game ever combined/suck harder than a very affectionate black hole.] (Pick one as appropriate.)

[extarbags]

Well the poster definitely has the right look to it.

[Sam Jones]

I want one of those posters.

[extarbags]

Hey wait, if this is all they're showing of F3, what is Bethsoft even showing this year?

[TreadingLeitly]

Oblivion sales on a cute little graph?

[nKoan]

Horse Armor v. 2?

[Incendiary Lemon]

Hey wait, if this is all they're showing of F3, what is Bethsoft even showing this year?

Do they have a Pirates of The Caribbean title scheduled for Summer?

[Moore]

Pfft.. a poster was al lthey had last year too.

[metta]

Looks fun!

[extarbags]

Pfft.. a poster was al lthey had last year too.

This one is a lot nicer.

[Shadari]

This one is a lot nicer.
Can't wait to see next year's.

[extarbags]

Can't wait to see next year's.

lolll

[instant0]

This poster is best of show -- E3 2006.

They could sell them for 49.95$

I'd buy one.

As long as I get a nice frame.

[Shadari]

This is a bit off-topic, but I remember way back in the day my friend had this huge Quake 2 promo box that was around 4 or 5 feet tall. Man I was so jealous.

[roguefrog]

Pipboy!!!



Not really. Pipboy is the little PDA machine that displays the map, quests, stores logs and whatnot.

The cartoon guy displayed for character system stuff is Vault Boy. IIRC, that was learned from one of the many Boyarsky interviews.

[Gordon Cameron]

Not really. Pipboy is the little PDA machine that displays the map, quests, stores logs and whatnot.

The cartoon guy displayed for character system stuff is Vault Boy. IIRC, that was learned from one of the many Boyarsky interviews.

Bah! Pipboy pedantry.

[Not One Of Us]

Fallout Boy.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I'll be your number one with a bullet;
Loaded God Complex, cock it and pull it!

-Fallout Boy, wusspunk band

[JPR]

I'll be your number one with a bullet;
Loaded God Complex, cock it and pull it!

-Fallout Boy, wusspunk band

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl4hbHwylYA&feature=Discussed&page=3&t=a&f=b

[Ben Sones]

Just because I like you guys, here's an image from my archives:

http://www.odditorium.net/wall05.jpg

[Rob_Merritt]

Hey wait, if this is all they're showing of F3, what is Bethsoft even showing this year?


Star Trek Legacy

[Incendiary Lemon]

What are we expecting from Bethesda's Fallout? What would you be happy with?

[Moore]

This is a bit off-topic, but I remember way back in the day my friend had this huge Quake 2 promo box that was around 4 or 5 feet tall. Man I was so jealous.


That'd be a swanky hallowwen costume. Still easy to obtain, it'd just be like $400 at kinkos.

[Jazar]

Is that Hitler? Cause he kinda looks like Hitler.

[Raife]

Is that Hitler? Cause he kinda looks like Hitler.

Moore looks like Hitler?

[nKoan]

What are we expecting from Bethesda's Fallout? What would you be happy with?

I want the same feel. I want dogmeat, I want large caliber heavy weapons, I want Nuka-Cola, I want mutants, I want old-style music soul/r&b/swing/whatever music playing over animations of bombs exploding and pictures of the apocalypse. I also want an engrossing story.

What I don't care about, is the specific mechanics of the game, as long as the feel and the story are up to par. At the threat of the NMA klan burning Pip-boys on my front lawn, I don't care if its turn-based or not this time around. I love the turn-based combat from F1 and F2, but I don't think its necessary to capture the flavor of Fallout.

[Igor Muravyev]

Bethsoft is making a Star Trek game?!

[Drastic]

That poster doesn't appear to be either turn-based or isometric. Therefore it will suck!

[Fugitive]

What are we expecting from Bethesda's Fallout? What would you be happy with?
Purchasable dog armour, so that they can survive through the endgame.

[metta]

What are we expecting from Bethesda's Fallout? What would you be happy with?

I care about the mechanics. If it's not S.P.E.C.I.A.L. it's not Fallout.

[Moore]

Moore looks like Hitler?


I do not!

[Rob_Merritt]

What are we expecting from Bethesda's Fallout? What would you be happy with?

1. Retro future gone wrong. The best fallout games are never far from their retro futuristic roots. In the 1930s to 50s we had a very different view of what the future would be. Fallout used this as a starting point. To me, this is the defining feature of the Fallout universe. Straying from this and you end up with Mad Max or Postman.
2. Established universe character and items. Things such as Ghouls, radscorps, tribes, nuka cola, postcards, pip boy, and so forth.
3. Perks. These are at the heart of customizing your character in the fallout universe.
4. Morbid humor. Things are bleak but if you don’t make them at least somewhat twisted, it ruins the enjoyment of the game. Fallout is not survival horror.
5. The music. Should be 1950s and creepy sci fi. No hip hop or rock.
6. Vague history and world status. We really don’t know what happen and what the status of the rest of the world is and this game shouldn’t change that.
7. Over the top violence.
8. Vaults. While the whole of Fallout universe doesn’t rest on the Vault dwellers, they are interesting.
9. Modern engine and game technology. Oblivion set the bar really freakin high.
10. Harold. – Nuff said

[Not One Of Us]

Harold.
"How did you survive?"
"Didn't. Got killed. Hah hah!"

[madkevin]

How many people looked at Ben's image in his post and thought to themselves: "Hey, I could make a sheet of Fallout blotter acid!"








.... Just me then, eh?

[Bill Dungsroman]

How many people looked at Ben's image in his post and thought to themselves: "Hey, I could make a sheet of Fallout blotter acid!"








.... Just me then, eh?
No.


_______

[Charles]

I look forward to an autolevelling system in Fallout where the stronger you get, the stronger your enemies get. Quest too much too early and bar thugs are outfitted in pure powerarmor.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Dear Bethesda:

Please ignore Charles' request. Some of us got killed by too many crabs in Wiz8. Thanks.

[Qmanol]

I know Charles is joking, but I liked how in Fallout you could run over the the dangerous areas, and if you were lucky enough to survive you got some nice items.

[Kool Moe Dee]

5. The music. Should be 1950s and creepy sci fi. No hip hop or rock.

What, you mean you didn't like Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel?

[Jasper Phillips]

I want old-style music soul/r&b/swing/whatever music playing over animations of bombs exploding and pictures of the apocalypse.
That's the Inkspots, "Maybe".

[Dave Long]

The poster's pretty cool. Saw it today...and I was behind the closed doors at Bethesda and F3 is definitely not hidden inside. One of the Mad Doc Software guys did a demo of Star Trek: Legacy for myself and some others and it looked good. Actiony...but still looks pretty cool.

[roguefrog]

Inkspots have another song Titled "I don't want to set the world on fire." It pretty much sounds identical to "Maybe", only different lyrics. (FTW?)

[nKoan]

That's the Inkspots, "Maybe".

While that is a great song, I prefered Louis Armstrong's - A Kiss to Build a Dream On from the intro to Fallout 2. But, that could just be the trumpet player in me.

[Rob_Merritt]

What, you mean you didn't like Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel?

It was bearly "ok". There where parts I liked about it but over all it was a very "meh" experence.

[Sarkus]

1. Retro future gone wrong. The best fallout games are never far from their retro futuristic roots. In the 1930s to 50s we had a very different view of what the future would be. Fallout used this as a starting point. To me, this is the defining feature of the Fallout universe. Straying from this and you end up with Mad Max or Postman.
2. Established universe character and items. Things such as Ghouls, radscorps, tribes, nuka cola, postcards, pip boy, and so forth.
3. Perks. These are at the heart of customizing your character in the fallout universe.
4. Morbid humor. Things are bleak but if you don’t make them at least somewhat twisted, it ruins the enjoyment of the game. Fallout is not survival horror.
5. The music. Should be 1950s and creepy sci fi. No hip hop or rock.
6. Vague history and world status. We really don’t know what happen and what the status of the rest of the world is and this game shouldn’t change that.
7. Over the top violence.
8. Vaults. While the whole of Fallout universe doesn’t rest on the Vault dwellers, they are interesting.
9. Modern engine and game technology. Oblivion set the bar really freakin high.
10. Harold. – Nuff said

I can agree with that.

[Kool Moe Dee]

It was bearly "ok". There where parts I liked about it but over all it was a very "meh" experence.

That was a joke. The music was terrible.

[Desslock]

The poster's pretty cool. Saw it today...and I was behind the closed doors at Bethesda and F3 is definitely not hidden inside.

Guys, it's a 2008 game most likely - next E3 at the earliest before anything public is released.

[foogla]

I look forward to an autolevelling system in Fallout where the stronger you get, the stronger your enemies get. Quest too much too early and bar thugs are outfitted in pure powerarmor.

This post made me smile.

[Brendan]

If the poster is any indication it looks like the atmosphere is going to be 50's optimism gone to the dogs again. That is the cornerstone of the entire Fallout experience.

My only complaint about the poster is that it is too self referential. I'd say it would have more impact without the Vault Boy watermark.

Christ, look at me, so desperate for a Fallout fix that I'm critiquing a goddamn poster. My mother would be so proud.

[xahlt]

Inkspots have another song Titled "I don't want to set the world on fire." It pretty much sounds identical to "Maybe", only different lyrics. (FTW?)

All Inkspots songs sound nearly identical, they all open with the exact same intro (quite literally, though in different keys).

[Charles]

I know Charles is joking, but I liked how in Fallout you could run over the the dangerous areas, and if you were lucky enough to survive you got some nice items.


Yes, but if there's one thing that Bethesda has driven home, it's that they aren't competent enough to make a good game using this philosophy, because they have a habit of leaving super weapons out in unprotected open spaces and the player might get it too early.

[Ryan A]

What are we expecting from Bethesda's Fallout? What would you be happy with?

I want a game that *doesn't* play like a Bethesda game.

[Rob_Merritt]

Yes, but if there's one thing that Bethesda has driven home, it's that they aren't competent enough to make a good game using this philosophy, because they have a habit of leaving super weapons out in unprotected open spaces and the player might get it too early.

Oh please.. You can speed run both Fallout 1 and 2 in minutes by heading straight for the uber suit of armor and weapon with the right skills.

[Graeme Dice]

Yes, but if there's one thing that Bethesda has driven home, it's that they aren't competent enough to make a good game using this philosophy, because they have a habit of leaving super weapons out in unprotected open spaces and the player might get it too early.

You haven't watched the video on how to beat Fallout 2 in under 15 minutes then? It's just as easy to get Advanced power armour in Fallout 2 as it is to get Daedric equipment in Morrowind. Oblivion has the advantage of actually trying to balance the game to your character, unlike Morrowind, where you are sent out to defeat level 5 bandits at level 53. I suspect that most of the complaints about bandits wearing expensive armour in Oblivion wouldn't surface had they been named "mercenaries", "adventurers", or "assasins" instead of "bandits".

[olaf]

I hope that it has turn-based tactical combat. I am about 99% sure it wont though.

olaf

[Charles]

Oh please.. You can speed run both Fallout 1 and 2 in minutes by heading straight for the uber suit of armor and weapon with the right skills.

I know this. What's your point? Are you arguing like Graeme?


You haven't watched the video on how to beat Fallout 2 in under 15 minutes then? It's just as easy to get Advanced power armour in Fallout 2 as it is to get Daedric equipment in Morrowind. Oblivion has the advantage of actually trying to balance the game to your character, unlike Morrowind, where you are sent out to defeat level 5 bandits at level 53. I suspect that most of the complaints about bandits wearing expensive armour in Oblivion wouldn't surface had they been named "mercenaries", "adventurers", or "assasins" instead of "bandits".


So you wouldn't mind if after a certain point everyone wore power armor? You don't think this would ruin Fallout?

You people are weird and strange and I hope you never get jobs designing games.

[Graeme Dice]

So you wouldn't mind if after a certain point everyone wore power armor? You don't think this would ruin Fallout?

I don't see how the feel of the world would be ruined if you had random attacks by people from the Oil Rig wearing Advanced Power Armour Mark 2 instead of random bandit attacks. Normal bandits shouldn't even approach you by that point. Playing through both games eventually matched you up against either super-mutants with heavy plasma weapons, or soldiers on the rig wearing power armour. And in both games, even these ending levels were trivially easy. You were invincible except for random critical hits that killed you instantly.

Comparing Morrowind to Oblivion, I'd far rather have Oblivion's automatically levelled enemies instead of Morrowind's underlevelled world where 95% of the encounters are balanced against a level 5-10 character. I don't see why it's such a stretch that your enemies in Morrowind get better equipment, would you rather they remained in leather armour so that you could effortlessly plow through them like some kind of demigod?

[Mike O'Malley]

Hell yeah, that was one of the appeals of the later stages of the Might and Magic games; the ability to become demigods and revisit those pesky little varmints that caused you so much grief earlier in the game.

[noun]

Inkspots have another song Titled "I don't want to set the world on fire." It pretty much sounds identical to "Maybe", only different lyrics. (FTW?)

All of their songs are exactly the same, minus the key and the words. Same intro riff, same pacing, same everything.

[Moore]

I hope that it has turn-based tactical combat. I am about 99% sure it wont though.

olaf

Has there ever been a turn based tactical first person game?

[Fugitive]

Has there ever been a turn based tactical first person game?
Incubation. (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/incubation-time-is-running-out)

[Phred]

It's been ages since I played the Fallouts but weren't the random outdoor encounters scaled to your level too? I could swear I ran across power armor clad enemies outside in the random encounters. Could be my memory acting up though.

[Moore]

Incubation. (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/incubation-time-is-running-out)


I'm obviously some kind of moron, but I'm not seeing that as first person. Was space hulk turn based? I cant fucking recall because I hated it. That'd be turn based tactical strategy, I guess. Maybe. I mean, the Eye of the beholder and dragon quest and m&m and all those fp rpgs are turn based but they are what I was thinking you meant because they are pretty simplistic combat wise..

I think FO's random stuff was scaled to your level, but you didnt actually walk around in a world populated by all those guys in power armor all over the place, they just you know, popped up. If FO is like oblivion, you'll have a sea of power armor wearing folks walking around waiting to attack you, and that would not really seem like a world barely scraping by in a wasteland.

[Qmanol]

It's been ages since I played the Fallouts but weren't the random outdoor encounters scaled to your level too? I could swear I ran across power armor clad enemies outside in the random encounters. Could be my memory acting up though.

There were a few types of random encounters that popped up wherever you were, but mostly they were fixed in location. Each area did have several versions of random encounters though, and it may be that the harder ones popped up more as you levelled.

[Fugitive]

I'm obviously some kind of moron, but I'm not seeing that as first person.
Unfortunately all of the screenshots they have there are from the third-person view, but you could play it from a first-person view as well, and that often gave you a better idea of what kind of line of fire you had on the enemies.

(Edit: See the last screenshot here (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/incubation/screenindex.html) instead.)

[Rob_Merritt]

So you wouldn't mind if after a certain point everyone wore power armor? You don't think this would ruin Fallout?

While I wouldn't want it, it wouldn't ruin it. The only thing that would "ruin it" is they screw with the setting or change the tone of the writing.


You people are weird and strange and I hope you never get jobs designing games.

You just want to hate. Face it, no matter WHAT comes out, you have already decided you are going to hate it. They could hire back the entire Fallout 1 staff, make a die heard turn based over heard game using a 8 it 2 d engine and you would get pissy over something silly like it comes on DVD. You are looking for an exuse to hate and you are going to the bottom of the barrel.

[Ben]

The only thing that would "ruin it" is they screw with the setting or change the tone of the writing

I'd much rather have a Fallout 3 that is a fun game in it's own right but missing the "Fallout" atmosphere than the converse thereof.

And scaling is a terrible, terrible design decision. It's such a terrible decision that it makes it very difficult for a game with scaling to be a good RPG since it more or less completely negates the feeling of getting more powerful.

[MikeSofaer]

Is there any reason to think they will scale it? Or are people just worried because of Oblivion?

[nKoan]

I think the latter.

[Moore]

You just want to hate. Face it, no matter WHAT comes out, you have already decided you are going to hate it. They could hire back the entire Fallout 1 staff, make a die heard turn based over heard game using a 8 it 2 d engine and you would get pissy over something silly like it comes on DVD. You are looking for an exuse to hate and you are going to the bottom of the barrel.

Yeah Charles, don't hate the player, hate the.. er.. wait. Oh. Go ahead.

[Jasper Phillips]

While that is a great song, I prefered Louis Armstrong's - A Kiss to Build a Dream On from the intro to Fallout 2. But, that could just be the trumpet player in me.
No doubt that's a better song and Louis Armstrong the better musician, but when I think of Fallout I hear the Ink Spots playing in the background. "Maybe"'s wistful tone just fits the setting better.

[Jasper Phillips]

So you wouldn't mind if after a certain point everyone wore power armor? You don't think this would ruin Fallout?

While I wouldn't want it, it wouldn't ruin it. The only thing that would "ruin it" is they screw with the setting or change the tone of the writing.
Errr, wait. You don't want them to screw with the setting, and yet think sticking everyone in power armor would be ok?! Everyone in power armor sure seems like a different setting to me...

[Igor Muravyev]

What, scaling in Fallout 3? Say it isn't so :(.

[Raife]

What, scaling in Fallout 3? Say it isn't so :(.

Just conjecture because it's Bethesda. Nothing solid.

[instant0]

Space Hulk was great.
And it was turn based if I remember correctly.

The sequel was first person and turn based, in a way, except you had a 'turn timer' that counted down, so you needed to be fast doing your moves, otherwise you .. uhm.. did not do any moves and the enemy ran over you pretty quickly. Very very hard game.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Yes, but if there's one thing that Bethesda has driven home, it's that they aren't competent enough to make a good game using this philosophy, because they have a habit of leaving super weapons out in unprotected open spaces and the player might get it too early.
As opposed to on the corpse of some uber-baddie who is a cinch to kill with some cheese move the other (Hi, Firkraag! Like fighting those fire elementals?); I mean, all it really amounts to is a mean to replay quicker and reward replay with the requisite hindsight, Because wow, sure love slogging' throug those opening dungeons/towns/whatfuckever a million times with no means to speed up the process.

[Saxman_72]

I don't see why it's such a stretch that your enemies in Morrowind get better equipment, would you rather they remained in leather armour so that you could effortlessly plow through them like some kind of demigod?
Yes, I would much rather see fixed level ranges of enemies depending on their location, just like Diablo, WoW, or the Might & Magic games.

[instant0]

An alternative to fixed or dynamic level ranges would be if all the entities in the game went about their business as well and did missions, bought, sold, slept, fought, died.. and those of them who actually DID survive could level up as any player could, so only the strongest bandits actually made it to higher levels to rival the player, whereas the others would remain servants, cowed, weak, or dead.

I remember you could level up mobs in Asherons Call...

[Rob_Merritt]

I'd much rather have a Fallout 3 that is a fun game in it's own right but missing the "Fallout" atmosphere than the converse thereof.


The problem is the game play in Fallout wasn't very good. The setting and the writing was the only reason why is was fun and we remember the game. Yes I know people rave about SPECIAL. The truth is that its a badly reverse engineered version of GURPS that was created in a hurry when Interplay lost the GURPS license. SPECIAL isn't balanced nor well thought out. Worse it promotes leveling whoring instead of role playing. The turn based combat was clunky at the time of its release and has not aged well. It was retro at the time of its release for crying out loud. If they have to have turn based combat (which I hate in RPGs becuae it takes me out of the game and anything that takes me out of the game play isn't "fun") then they should copy the system from Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil which is far surperior turn based combat system in every way to Fallout's SPECIAL. (though I'm not sure how they can do it without a DnD licence)

Its been 10 years since Fallout's release (the same amount of time between the release of Wasteland and Fallout), the game play needs to evolve to meet modern expectations.


It's been ages since I played the Fallouts but weren't the random outdoor encounters scaled to your level too? I could swear I ran across power armor clad enemies outside in the random encounters. Could be my memory acting up though.

Yes they did which is why Fallout is much easier to beat fairly early in the game. Also it makes my point perfectly. People are looking for something to bitch about. Even if Bethesda made an exact clone of Fallout, the vocal minority of "Fallout fans" would find something to bitch about even if its something they imagine.

[Rob_Merritt]

Errr, wait. You don't want them to screw with the setting, and yet think sticking everyone in power armor would be ok?! Everyone in power armor sure seems like a different setting to me...

I didn't say I wanted that way, just that its a minor issue. I could ignore that flaw where as if they started throwing in Elfs, Wizards and magic I would be rather pissed. Or if the game was tamed down to make a T rating. Those would be real issues of altering the game. The loot dropped by random encounters isn't a major issue.

[DeepT]

Fallout was the story and setting. The game mechanics were secondary, but still important. I do think it would be a big mistake to remove turn based combat although I could deal with it if real time combat was done very very well. However, if real time combat means Oblivion real time combat, it will totally suck.

In oblivion whenver you had a party of people, combat was far to hectic to manage. Can you imagine that with machine guns and turbo lasers? It would be neigh impossible to not kill or be killed by friendly NPCs.

Combat in fallout was deadly. That, to me was very important. There was none of this I have 200hp and your pistal does 20hp crap. You could one shot anyone. I really have little confidence in Bethelsda comming up with good game mechanics. Thier engine might render the world beautifully, but the actual game play mechanics they can easily come up with would suck hard.

Also, scaled combat.. would ruin it. It was a bad idea in oblivion. It would be really bad in fallout. Part of it was knowing certain areas were more dangerous then others, and poking your nose around to test the waters. I do not know how many times I ran from death claws until I got strong enough to face them. Now imagine there are no death claws until your level 12, then suddenly there are death claws everywhere. It would be stupid.

[unbongwah]

Hell yeah, that was one of the appeals of the later stages of the Might and Magic games; the ability to become demigods and revisit those pesky little varmints that caused you so much grief earlier in the game.
Yeah, what I call the "Big Man on Campus" moment: when you go back and bully all the low-level monsters which gave you so much trouble when you were a 1st-level n00b.

"Who's the big man now, Vinnie?"


And scaling is a terrible, terrible design decision. It's such a terrible decision that it makes it very difficult for a game with scaling to be a good RPG since it more or less completely negates the feeling of getting more powerful.
That makes no sense: the entire point to scaling is that as you get more powerful, so do your enemies; it's meant to maintain tension in the game by ensuring it's never a cakewalk.

*shrug* It's just a design philosophy. I can understand why people prefer fixed encounters, but I don't see why people think one approach is far better than the other.

[extarbags]

The problem is the game play in Fallout wasn't very good. The setting and the writing was the only reason why is was fun and we remember the game. Yes I know people rave about SPECIAL. The truth is that its a badly reverse engineered version of GURPS that was created in a hurry when Interplay lost the GURPS license. SPECIAL isn't balanced nor well thought out. Worse it promotes leveling whoring instead of role playing. The turn based combat was clunky at the time of its release and has not aged well. It was retro at the time of its release for crying out loud. If they have to have turn based combat (which I hate in RPGs becuae it takes me out of the game and anything that takes me out of the game play isn't "fun") then they should copy the system from Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil which is far surperior turn based combat system in every way to Fallout's SPECIAL. (though I'm not sure how they can do it without a DnD licence)

First of all, SPECIAL is not the name of the turn-based combat system that Fallout uses, so they could copy that system easily if they wanted, though I would prefer that they just took the interface from it and kept the system of spending action points rather than ToEE's "move then attack" system.

Second, you're mad. SPECIAL is an extremely elegant character system, and it was and is perfect for what Fallout is about. If you'd rather see Fallout 3 have real-time combat and a D&D license, then... well, you're not really someone who wants to play Fallout 3 at all, I guess.

[extarbags]

Yes they did which is why Fallout is much easier to beat fairly early in the game. Also it makes my point perfectly. People are looking for something to bitch about. Even if Bethesda made an exact clone of Fallout, the vocal minority of "Fallout fans" would find something to bitch about even if its something they imagine.

And actually, the answer to this is no, encounters do not scale to your level in Fallout. There are encounters with enemies wearing power armor in certain areas, that's all.

[Rob_Merritt]

Second, you're mad. SPECIAL is an extremely elegant character system, and it was and is perfect for what Fallout is about.

SPECIAL and "perfect" do not belong in the same sentence together. For role playing, there is nothing in it that most RPGs didn't do far better and for combat, it was more or less a Rube Goldberg invention compared to most other rpgs as well.


you're not really someone who wants to play Fallout 3

Neither do you. You just want to replay Fallout 1 from 10 years ago. I want to play a modern RPG, with all the game play and graphic improvements set in the fallout universe.

[Graeme Dice]

Second, you're mad. SPECIAL is an extremely elegant character system, and it was and is perfect for what Fallout is about.

I suppose that it's perfect if you want to create invincible diplo-snipers.

[Rob_Merritt]

And actually, the answer to this is no, encounters do not scale to your level in Fallout. There are encounters with enemies wearing power armor in certain areas, that's all.

Ok, so I looked up and they scale based on your stats and perks but they do scale and your stats are altered in game. Just semantics.

[extarbags]

SPECIAL and "perfect" do not belong in the same sentence together. For role playing, there is nothing in it that most RPGs didn't do far better and for combat, it was more or less a Rube Goldberg invention compared to most other rpgs as well.

You sound like you just hated Fallout.


Neither do you. You just want to replay Fallout 1 from 10 years ago. I want to play a modern RPG, with all the game play and graphic improvements set in the fallout universe.

If I wanted to play Fallout 1, I'd do that. I'm not some NMA dweeb. But Fallout and Fallout 2 are my two favorite games ever, and the reason, amazingly, isn't that the writing was so good that I plowed through hours and hours of unbearable gameplay. I loved the gameplay in both of those games. I love the SPECIAL system. I love the combat. That's why I'd like to see similar things return.


Ok, so I looked up and they scale based on your stats and perks but they do scale and your stats are altered in game. Just semantics.

Where did you look this up? Because you can definitely get attacked by dudes in power armor at level one, and you can definitely stomp through guys with spears at level 30, at least in Fallout 2.

[Rob_Merritt]

You sound like you just hated Fallout.

I love fallout, just not the combat. The setting, story, and characters were great. Combat and the character system I just tolerated


You can definitely get attacked by dudes in power armor at level one, and you can definitely stomp through guys with spears at level 30, at least in Fallout 2.

There are area encounters, scripted encounters and random encounters. Like Oblivion, the random encounters are to "level". Oblivion doesn't have area encounters like Fallout and Gothic has with a few exceptions and thats what you are noticing as different.

[extarbags]

Well, if you say so.

What are your specific problems with SPECIAL?

[Rob_Merritt]

Well, if you say so.

What are your specific problems with SPECIAL?

Just that its not fun. Its a complex table top strategy system and it makes combat a drawn out chore.

[ViriiGuy]

I have waited for so long for Fallout 3, that I have given up all hope.
Then I came across The Fall (http://www.the-fall.com/e/index.php), and my hopes for a new post apocolyptic RPG had been renewed.
Well here I sit 3 years after the discovery, and 1.5 years after the foriegn release of this game, still being promised a North American release.

From everything I have seen "The Fall" is exactly the game I have been waiting on, but I may never get to play it.

[DeepT]

Ok, so I looked up and they scale based on your stats and perks but they do scale and your stats are altered in game. Just semantics.

You played a differant game then I did then. In fallout and Fallout 2, there was no scaling of any kind. Areas had a fixed difficulty level. Monsters never got stronger or weaker.

[Gordon Cameron]

Those deathclaws sure kicked my ass the first time I tried 'em anyway...

[Kalle]

Just that its not fun. Its a complex table top strategy system and it makes combat a drawn out chore.

I would disagree. One of the advantages of computers is that you can take all those messy table-top rules and hide them from the user. I thought the combat system was very well suited to the game and gave me a degree of control over the fighting that, for instance, the Infinity Engine games never did. I liked being able to shoot people in the groin for a critical hit. I liked that I could take my time to figure out where to position myself to make my minigun burst take maximum effect. I thought combat in Fallout was intuitive and for the most part a good challenge.

The downsides were that some fights took way too long as every rat on the map wanted to move, that burst weapons didn't show their field of fire so you never were quite sure if Marcus would fuck you up or not, and the somewhat suicidal NPC's that didn't care about silly stuff like friendly fire. All of these issues could be resolved on a modern system. A simultaneous movement system option, a simple graphical indicator of targets/areas, and an improved ai and I would be happy.

As to whether or not Fallout levelled encounters or not I suggest that anyone in doubt start up Fallout and head straight west, or Fallout 2 and head straight south on the world map. There sure as hell are no rad scorpions outside of San Fransisco.

[RepoMan]

I suppose that it's perfect if you want to create invincible diplo-snipers.
Man, I'd buy that game in a minute.

"He turned down my offer to support him against the Germans in Norway in 1942? I climb the nearest building and BLOW HIS FUCKING HEAD OFF!"

[Incendiary Lemon]

Just that its not fun. Its a complex table top strategy system and it makes combat a drawn out chore.

That seems like an odd criticism. One of the thing I love about SPECIAL is how simple it is. Seven attributes and a few skills.

[Jasper Phillips]

I didn't think Fallout's mechanics were anything special (although I like that they were skill and action point based), and they certainly wouldn't work well for a PnP RPG, but I thought they were just fine for a CRPG -- and far better than most.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm having a hard time coming up with a CRPG whose mechanics I liked better... Most seem to have at best DnD derivative mechanics.

I'm curious Rob, which CRPGs do you think have good mechanics?

[Dhruin]

Fallout doesn't scale.

Rob hates turn-based combat and loves uber action, so it has nothing to do with anything Fallout did wrong and everything to do with Rob personally disliking Fallout's "retro gameplay" and loving what Bethsoft did with Oblivion.

[Bill Dungsroman]

The only real problem with the turn-based combat in Fallout was that it was slow, IMO. I liked it. It opened up a lot of tactical/character potential. You could add Action Points to you rtotal, plus reduce the cost of using weapons/items, and so on. I'd be down with a KotOR-type setup, and I think it would stay true enough to the originals.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Fallout doesn't scale.

There were the Bounty Hunters (if you gained enough infamy.) Thats the only exception I can think of.

[Moore]

I'd prefer straight action to KOTOR style fights. combat in KOTOR was complete garbage.

[Ben]

The problem is the game play in Fallout wasn't very good.

??? Fallout had great, great, great gameplay.



Just that its not fun. Its a complex table top strategy system and it makes combat a drawn out chore.

Every single part in this quote is incorrect. It is fun, it's not complex, it's not a table top system, it doesn't change anything about the combat, and the combat wasn't a drawn out chore.

Rob, did you actually play Fallout? SPECIAL was just the character system, not the combat. You could very easily make a realtime Fallout 3 and use SPECIAL.


The setting, story, and characters were great.

Fallout 1 didn't have much of a story or characters. The only party member people can remember is a freaking dog.

And before you try to call me out as an NMA fanboy, I want Fallout 3 to be a 3rd person action-RPG.

[Dhruin]

There were the Bounty Hunters (if you gained enough infamy.) Thats the only exception I can think of.

Yep, fair enough. Definitely an exception as you say.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Fallout 1 didn't have much of a story or characters.

Dude... the Overseer? The ending? Its the rare game that lives up to that.


Definitely an exception as you say.

Agreed. I never actually triggered them though. Perhaps I should install it again.

[ydejin]

I'd prefer straight action to KOTOR style fights. combat in KOTOR was complete garbage.

I agree. I thought KOTOR combat was horrible. Very boring. Combining the worst of turn-based and real-time combat. Not real-time/actiony enough to make me feel like my twitches made any difference, but not enough strategy or interesting tactical options to compare with a good turn-based system.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Okay guys, but it's Bethsoft making the game; we aren't getting iso.

[Rob_Merritt]

I'm curious Rob, which CRPGs do you think have good mechanics?

In turn based old school rpgs, I perfer the earlier Might & Magic, Bard's Tale and the SSI gold box games. A lot of the Japaneses rpgs have great turn based combat systems but terrible story lines so I don't play them often.

For real time, Microprose's Darklands was great. Truely ahead of its time. Daggerfall was one my my favorites for years. Arcanum played in real time is good with melee characters (though I played and finished with all 3 major types so its entirely doable no matter what type of character you pick) Ofcourse Deus Ex and Oblivion are high on my list.

For games that try to do a mixture, I liked bother Jagged Alliance and Knights of the Old Republic. Pausable realtime would probably be my favorite but it hasn't been used in a truely great game yet so it remainds to be seen


Fallout doesn't scale.

Ok, encounters and types of encounters are altered based on your stats in Fallout. Stats are changed in the game. Its not exactly level 20 get X creature that Oblivion does but random encounters aren't set in code stone.


Rob hates turn-based combat and loves uber action

You are totally and 100% wrong. I like turn based combat when it makes sense for the game. Like Xcom or Shattered Union. It doesn't make sense when it gets in the way of the game play like in an rpg. I also do not like "action rpgs" like Diablo where the game play is just rapid mouse clicking.


Every single part in this quote is incorrect. It is fun, it's not complex, it's not a table top system, it doesn't change anything about the combat, and the combat wasn't a drawn out chore.

I remember caves with many little creatures and combat taking freakin forever to resolve. I just want to get from one end of a cave to another and I have to spend 15 minutes resolving combat with rats. Fallout's combat was either ultra quick or just dragged out forever. It was just such a huge disconnect from the rest of the game.


Rob, did you actually play Fallout? SPECIAL was just the character system, not the combat. You could very easily make a realtime Fallout 3 and use SPECIAL.

haha.. Play Lionheart and get back with me.


Okay guys, but it's Bethsoft making the game; we aren't getting iso.

I have this feeling we will but it probably will not be the best way to play the game.

[Qmanol]

For games that try to do a mixture, I liked bother Jagged Alliance and Knights of the Old Republic. Pausable realtime would probably be my favorite but it hasn't been used in a truely great game yet so it remainds to be seen


Um, JA2 was almost exactly the same as Fallout. TB in combat, RT outside. My favourite type of TB gameplay.


Ok, encounters and types of encounters are altered based on your stats in Fallout. Stats are changed in the game. Its not exactly level 20 get X creature that Oblivion does but random encounters aren't set in code stone.

The thing is Rob, that scaling in Fallout was not in the vast majority of encounters and areas, and when it was, it was used such that it made sense. Oblivion's scaling is just a sloppy fix to the Morrowind uber-levelling problem.


I remember caves with many little creatures and combat taking freakin forever to resolve. I just want to get from one end of a cave to another and I have to spend 15 minutes resolving combat with rats. Fallout's combat was either ultra quick or just dragged out forever. It was just such a huge disconnect from the rest of the game.

This is a failing of the engine, not of the TB combat. It spent far too much time animating everyone's moves. I always cranked enemy movement speed up to max, and it was fine.. It would also sometimes keep you in combat too long, but not often.

While I agree that the combat engine in Fallout was flawed (AP ammo useless, too easy to blow everyone's brains out through their eye sockets) I found it enjoyable to an extent that I have only rarely found with turn based combat. I'd like to see its shortcomings fixed, not have the whole system thrown out. This was happening with the cancelled project, and it'd be nice to ese Bethesda take into account the stuff that the old engine did right, rather than scrap it all.

[Desslock]

SPECIAL was not from a pen & paper game, by the way.

[RightWrong]

Fallout 1 didn't have much of a story or characters.


I'm not going to get into the SPECIAL argument, but where did this statement come from? I thought most of the Talking Heads had a lot of personality; how could you not become attached to ol' Harold or the Brotherhood soldiers? Or utterly and completely freaked out by the Master? I'm not a big RPG fan, but Fallout's gotta be in my top 5 just for hitting all the right notes in terms of atmosphere and story.

[Ryan A]

MAKE THE COMBAT LIKE JA2 AND I WILL HAVE BETHESDAS LOVE CHILDREN

[Saxman_72]

Fallout 1 didn't have much of a story or characters.
*cough* *splutter*.....holy sweet mother of crap, son, did you just seriously make that statement? I suppose that the next thing you'll claim is that PS:T didn't have much of a story or characters, either.

o.O

[Ben]

Fallout's combat was either ultra quick or just dragged out forever. It was just such a huge disconnect from the rest of the game.


Fallout's combat, definitively: Too fast, and also too slow.



haha.. Play Lionheart and get back with me.

I don't get it. I've never played Lionheart, but by all accounts it was a terrible game. Can you just tell me why the "attributes+skills+traits+perks" system requires turn based combat?


holy sweet mother of crap, son, did you just seriously make that statement?

Yeah, I did. Fallout 1 had a servicable story, but it really pales compared to Fallout 2. The world was kind of small, there were like 5 talking heads, and the Grand Foozle was pretty generic. Also, and this is important, nobody can remember your human party members.

[Abbaon]

the Grand Foozle was pretty generic.
If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout/screenshots/gameShotId,12701/)

[Sam Jones]

there were like 5 talking heads

If by "like 5" you mean 21, then yes.


Also, and this is important, nobody can remember your human party members.

Not even Dogmeat, or Ian?

[GlaziusFalconar]

Not even Dogmeat, or Ian?
So no on the human party members, then.

--GF

[Not One Of Us]

Ian wasn't human?

[RightWrong]

Uh, there were like HALF as many Talking Heads in Fallout 2(http://www.nma-fallout.com/content.php?page=fo2-heads) as compared to Fallout(http://www.nma-fallout.com/content.php?page=fo-heads)... And that's being generous. I've never included "Dying Hakunin" or "Frank Horrigan" as a talking head since their dialogue options peter out after one click. Although it was a smart decision to make 3 of the talking heads possible group members. I never gave a damn though because groups were fucking annoying in any version of Fallout. I remember Vic, Milo, Dogmeat, Sulik, and Ian for how much of a pain in the ass they were.

Everyone has their own opinion on this, but Fallout 2 always struck me as a lot less cohesive in terms of story. Yes, the world was larger and more open ended ( especially in terms of GECK-time for waterchip-time ), but I sensed there was less quality than the fewer places you visited in Fallout 1. Especially Modoc or New Reno. The development team got sidetracked on cool little sex-quests in New Reno ( did I mention how out of place that town seems? ) rather than build up the mystery of the Enclave in a timely fashion.

And **** yeah, I remember Ian and Dogmeat.

[Ben]

If by "like 5" you mean 21, then yes.


Ok, like 5 important talking heads.



Not even Dogmeat, or Ian?


Sez me: "The only party member people can remember is a freaking dog."

Apparently 2 of you remember Ian, but can you name the other potential party members? Or even describe them? They all had roughly the personality of the mercenaries in Diablo 2.

[extarbags]

Ok, like 5 important talking heads.




Sez me: "The only party member people can remember is a freaking dog."

Apparently 2 of you remember Ian, but can you name the other potential party members? Or even describe them? They all had roughly the personality of the mercenaries in Diablo 2.

Those two represent 2/3 of the available party members in the first Fallout. From the second one, I can remember these:

Dogmeat
Sulik
Vic
Cassidy
Brainbot
Pariah's Dog
Myron
Marcus
Bessie

Plus these ones whose names I can't recall:

the robot dog
your husband/wife

I don't think that's all of them, but it's most.

[Ben]

Those two represent 2/3 of the available party members in the first Fallout.

Incorrect. Who do you think was the third, by the way?

[extarbags]

Also, you dofa, play Fallout: Tactics for an example of SPECIAL with real-time combat (or close to it).

[extarbags]

Incorrect. Who do you think was the third, by the way?

Katja. After looking it up, I didn't realize that Tycho and Tandi were available as party members.

[Jasper Phillips]

For games that try to do a mixture, I liked bother Jagged Alliance and Knights of the Old Republic. Pausable realtime would probably be my favorite but it hasn't been used in a truely great game yet so it remainds to be seen
You lost me there. Some of your other choices I'd disagree with (e.g. try playing Bard's tale again), yet could easily see as difference of opinion, but the Jagged Alliance mechanics were only superficially different than Fallout's. Seems like your dislike probably stems from something else, like the rats you mention slogging through, which isn't really related to the mechanics.

I'd like to see Fallout 3 take the best aspects from Jagged Alliance, Fallout, and Silent Storm.

[Not One Of Us]

This thread makes me want to reinstall Fallout 1 and 2.

I did not know you could get a wife in that game. Do they swing both ways?

[extarbags]

This thread makes me want to reinstall Fallout 1 and 2.

I did not know you could get a wife in that game. Do they swing both ways?

IIRC the NPC is automatically the reverse of your own gender. They're in Modoc, I think it is.

[Sapper Gopher]

IIRC the NPC is automatically the reverse of your own gender. They're in Modoc, I think it is.

Not true. There's a son and a daughter, and you can have a gay shotgun wedding with either one. The dad's dialogue when he walks in on the female PC and his daughter is great. Too bad the only thing the daughter was good for was selling to the slavers.

[Chris Campion]

Every once in a while I do a search on Fallout 3 to see what the latest is, or check NMA, but I can't get too amped over this game. I don't think it'll end up looking or feeling like Fallout 1 or 2, which would kind of rob it of some of its quirky charms. In many ways both 1 and 2 were terrible games graphically, and the interface was lame, but I was still drawn unmercifully into the storyline and my character for some reason. Fallout will still remain the RPG bar that others RPGs will have to clear, at least in the way Fallout got me to care about my character.

I'd still like to see it in the same perspective as 1 and 2, and not a first-person view.

[RightWrong]

Ok, like 5 important talking heads.

Overseer, Tandi, Aradesh, Gizmo, Killian, Harold, Harry, The Master. I don't think unless I was powergaming to beat it in five days that I'd miss one of those. Butch, Cabbot, Maxson, and the Lieutenant I've seen in about four out of my five runs through the game too. For Fallout 2 it's Elder, Hakunin, Sulik, Marcus, Lynette, the Prez, and Harold. And Frank Horrigan pops up at the end simply to say he'll kill me.


Sez me: "The only party member people can remember is a freaking dog."

Apparently 2 of you remember Ian, but can you name the other potential party members? Or even describe them? They all had roughly the personality of the mercenaries in Diablo 2.

Right, the only party member one can remember is the dog, because it was really hard to get rid of Dogmeat, no matter how hard you tried. Ian was easy to get but weak in the long run. Tycho only appeared at certain times of the day. I didn't even visit Katja until the third time I'd played Fallout after reading a strategy guide.

There were definitely more easy-group members to acquire in Fallout 2, but I still don't get why they are an example of deeper characterization or story. There was never any sort of real interaction with a party member after you acquired him or her. No attachment to the story. It's not like Final Fantasy where they grow or have their own vendettas. They're largely just stupid NPC's that you might grudgingly accept for awhile to complete a quest that's too advanced for you.

[Kalle]

Every once in a while I do a search on Fallout 3 to see what the latest is, or check NMA...

That way lies madness. Gaze into the abyss too long and the fanbois gaze back

[Johan O]

I am also in the camp that thought Fallout 1 had the better story. It was tighter and more immediate. In Fallout 1 I allways had the sense that there was a purpose to what I was doing and a direction to the overall narrative, in Fallout 2 much less so. The combat intensive maps in fallout 2 seemed to be bigger and more generic as well, like they were big for the sake of being big rather than for any particular story reason, a bit like the generic Bethesda dungeons of Daggerfall or Morrowind.

[Chris Campion]

That way lies madness. Gaze into the abyss too long and the fanbois gaze back

I get the same confused feeling every time I check NMA - there's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

BTW Rob et al - this is Sniffdude from the old Gone Gold board.

[JM]

BTW Rob et al - this is Sniffdude from the old Gone Gold board.

How long has the doctor given you?

[Chris Campion]

How long has the doctor given you?

Six inches.

[Rob_Merritt]

Not true. There's a son and a daughter, and you can have a gay shotgun wedding with either one. The dad's dialogue when he walks in on the female PC and his daughter is great. Too bad the only thing the daughter was good for was selling to the slavers.

Not true, she was good for a fluff girl in Reno.

[Destarius]

After reading the thread, I think Rob would prefer JA in real time. Bleh.

[Rob_Merritt]

After reading the thread, I think Rob would prefer JA in real time. Bleh.

I did not say that. JA for one has a much better combat system than Fallout. Second, while JA has a good story with RPG elements, JA is closer to a mission based strategy game like Xcom than a story based rpg like Fallout.

[Brendan]

SPECIAL was not from a pen & paper game, by the way.

Wasn't SPECIAL based on GURPS?

[Brad Grenz]

No. They were going to use the GURPS system in the game but there ended up being some kind of problem with the license forcing them to cook up their own system. SPECIAL is what they came up with in house.

[Kunikos]

While that is a great song, I prefered Louis Armstrong's - A Kiss to Build a Dream On from the intro to Fallout 2. But, that could just be the trumpet player in me.

Definitely, that was the classic intro song for me that set the tongue-in-cheek tone for the whole game.

[Kunikos]

Wasn't SPECIAL based on GURPS?

SPECIAL was made up when they lost the license to do the proper Wasteland system...

[Desslock]

SPECIAL was made up when they lost the license to do the proper Wasteland system...

No, they were never going to use the Wasteland system - as Brad G said, Fallout was originally going to use Steve Jackson's GURPS system, but Interplay and Jackson had a falling out during the making of the game, so Interplay created its own character development system - SPECIAL.

[Destarius]

I did not say that. JA for one has a much better combat system than Fallout. Second, while JA has a good story with RPG elements, JA is closer to a mission based strategy game like Xcom than a story based rpg like Fallout.

I must have gotten the wrong impression from this:


If they have to have turn based combat (which I hate in RPGs becuae it takes me out of the game and anything that takes me out of the game play isn't "fun")...(emphasis added)

My suggestion to you is that you would want JA in real time, given your preference.

[Gordon Cameron]

I don't mind being "taken out of the game" if it puts me into another game that is fun.

[Rob_Merritt]

I must have gotten the wrong impression from this:

My suggestion to you is that you would want JA in real time, given your preference.

When I wrote that I wasn't thinking about Jagged Alliance. Its more of an Xcom like game.


I don't mind being "taken out of the game" if it puts me into another game that is fun.

A generally hate that. Generally it says "we've ran out of ideas, lets do mini games!"

[Gordon Cameron]

I don't consider a combat screen to be a "minigame" any more than, say, a dialogue tree or an inventory screen. I just take it in stride as another part of the multifaceted gameplay of RPGs -- it's been a staple of the genre at least since Ultima III, where I recall it seeming like a wonderful innovation when it was introduced. (Prior to that it was basically just "whack away" with your one guy, a la Ultima II or Questron -- not very interesting.) Of course, in those days, every aspect of an RPG was turn based anyway.

Also, as combat is often the crunchiest portion of any RPG, I don't really view it as a "minigame" seated inside the rest of the game. I would be more likely to view the other stuff (NPC interaction, travel, inventory management, etc.) as a "macrogame" or "wrapper" put around the crunchy combat core. But the truth of RPG design IMO slips between both extremes as it is the interaction among the various elements that generates the appeal, setting it apart from either the action or tactical-strategy genre while borrowing elements of one or the other (or both).

Game mechanics have moved forward and there have been attempts to put an entire RPG world on the same scale and in the same time frame (whether real time or turn based). I have no objection to this but neither do I consider it mandatory. I would rather have a deep and interesting turn based combat system that is separate from the general world interaction, than a realtime one that fits in seamlessly but is not as much fun to play.

[Kadath]

Hey, maybe they can make Fallout into, oh I dunno, a squad based FPS with RADIATION. It will be JUST LIKE the Fallout universe, only, not so much.

[slantz]

A generally hate that. Generally it says "we've ran out of ideas, lets do mini games!"
Well, except some of my favorite games (Rise of Nations, X-com, Pirates, star control 2, etc) all have different types of games in one package, and I think they are all better for it.

That said, self-described 'mini-games' are often kludgy hacks that don't work well, as you implied. But if a meta-game or sub-game is instrumental to a game's design and gets the production attention it deserves, it can easily make the game much better instead of worse.

I think the reason why people tend to think all sub-games are crap is because the good ones (including combat systems in many games) feel so well-integrated into the game as a whole that they don't stand out as being a seperate, crappy thing.


I don't consider a combat screen to be a "minigame" any more than, say, a dialogue tree or an inventory screen.
There's no concrete definition, of course, but I would say a combat system *is* a mini-game. (I use the term with no quality prejudice.) Just because combat systems are common doesn't change their functional role in a game's design. If anything, I think that most combat systems should be held up as good examples of how to integrate a mini-game into a design such that it doesn't give players that distinctive 'tacked-on' impression.

[Shadarr]

A generally hate that. Generally it says "we've ran out of ideas, lets do mini games!"
Yeah, I loved RE4 to death but thought the DDR button-pushing bits were stupid and pointless.

Conversely, the debating mini-game in RotTK X was rock awesome. I guess what it boils down to is, if they put another game inside the main game, it has to be as fun as the main game or it'll piss off the player.

[Kalle]

Hold it, you thought the combat in Fallout felt like a mini game?

[Rob_Merritt]

Hold it, you thought the combat in Fallout felt like a mini game?

Pretty much. A game within a game that destracts from the main game. Some times the combat was a maxi game since it dragged on forever at times.

[extarbags]

Good god.

[Uncle Larry]

I knew there had to be people out there somewhere who didn't like Fallout. And I guess it makes sense that they all post on a forum run by the guy who hates Burnout.

[Jasper Phillips]

Hey, maybe they can make Fallout into, oh I dunno, a squad based FPS with RADIATION. It will be JUST LIKE the Fallout universe, only, not so much.
That niche is already taken by the upcoming Shadowrun "Counterstrike with MAGIC" game...

[Bill Dungsroman]

Pretty much. A game within a game that destracts from the main game. Some times the combat was a maxi game since it dragged on forever at times.
I don't even get it. It's not like you flipped to a different combat screen like the old Gold Box SSI games (which were just weird super-large representations of the current map spot) or something. The transition was as smooth as any RPG that wasn't just clicky-clicky combat. The little combat interface bar WHIRRED up and combat began.

[Kalle]

Rob, seriously, I don't know what to say. The combat was as integrated into the game as they could possibly make it, to the point where you could still do everything you could do outside of combat, just in turn-based mode. And more than that, the combat isn't some small diversion. It's half the game. If you don't like it that's fine, but calling it a mini game is just crazy.

[Rob_Merritt]

I figured I'd bump this thread for the benefit of Naked_Lunch.

[JM]

May you burn in a thousand hells.

Hells as designed by Bethesda, with QA by Troika.

[Rob_Merritt]

May you burn in a thousand hells.

Hells as designed by Bethesda, with QA by Troika.

And published by Interplay

[Warning]

May you burn in a thousand hells.

Hells as designed by Bethesda, with QA by Troika.
Yeah but the enemies in hell would level along with you so I don't think it would be that bad. Really you could explore anywhere safe in the knowledge that hell adjusts to you.

[JM]

But they'd all have hideous faces, and all you'd ever hear is the chorus of a million lost souls screaming I hear the Fighters Guild is recruiting!.

And so on.

[Bill Dungsroman]

SEEN ANY ELVES? HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Jason McMaster]

ONLY WHEN I OPEN MY EYES! DUH!