Did I say everything else will remain the same? Please don't shove words down my throat. My whole point in that argument is that FO3's VATS does not work well as a replacement for turn-based combat, which is integral to the SPECIAL system and part of the thing that defined the original series. If you want to take that out, fine, give us a fine substitute. Real time might cut it if they knew how. But VATS is definately not the answer.

I bid you to re-read my post. I quoted the examples of changing stances and leaning out of doorways as a question of whether VATS allowed other movement other than shooting, because I think if it did it'll be great. I never used those examples as a mean to say VATS can't do what Fallout can.

I mentioned changing stances AND leaning out of hallways because those WERE features of a typical FPS. Crouching and leaning are pretty much in most shooters nowadays, and if they make it as a FPP I would expect those to be in there or else I'd be getting the idea that the player character has very stiff knees. The main point is with whether VATS allowed movement other than shooting because that actually matters a lot tactically, which I have given an example of in my previous post.

Neither did Fallout had it in the first place. Who mentioned that NOT having control over your characters is an issue in this debate?

That's like saying which part of Half Life's combat is truly memorable and unique to HL, since Doom and Quake had it before it came out? Many loved Fallout for being turn-based. The original developed insisted on keeping it isometric and turn-based in their Van Buren. What will the fans of say... Diablo say if suddenly it was turned into a strategy/tactical paused-timed/turn-based game, and then called Diablo 3?

Fair enough if you call VATS as called shots. And like I said in a way earlier post, I am skeptical of how it will work, but if it works I'll eat my words.

Well then, it's your opinion to mine. I'll leave it as that.

Well you said that perks which gave you bonuses on AP will now be useless. That's pretty obvious and it really didn't need pointing out, hence my assumption that you think they'll just tack on Real-Time and not change anything else to suit it.

I don't think Bethesda is painting a picture where VATS = FPS with RPG elements. From what I can tell, its basically where you can make called shots on enemies based on your present skillset. That has pretty much nothing to do with FPS controls as that's pretty standard fare.

Might as well ask whether VATS will accommodate reloading since all FPS' do it. Or flashlights.

Then again, I suppose VATS will probably take into account what your character is presently doing when you activate it. So, the accuracy of your shots will be something like this:
Crouched/prone > standing still > walking > running > jumping

That was my point... Nevermind as I didn't get what you were trying to say.

Well, I could sum up HL's hallmarks as being a full fledged narrative driven FPS with smart AI. To me, that's what made HL, HL.

As for your Diablo 3 example, remember that when creating a sequel, maintaining the essence of the original is what's important. For a game like Diablo, where its very essence IS the gameplay, obviously changing genres is out of the question. This is very different for a typical CRPG as its the combination of the Experience system, combat and most importantly the narrative (Otherwise, you could call Planescape: Torment one of the most craptastic RPG out there since its combat is so wonky)

Again it goes back to what made Fallout, Fallout. That can easily be answered by answering the next question


Which would you prefer for Fallout 3 (No, ifs or buts. You MUST choose one and ONLY one since we're going for extremes here to prove a point):
It retains the Turn-Based combat in its original form, almost identical with little changes (To improve gameplay), BUT the cities, characters, narrative and quests are all generic, trite and boring pieces of drivel.

OR

It retains the wonderfully immersive, engaging, post apocalyptic world filled with well fleshed out characters and meaningful quests, BUT it uses a totally different combat style and viewpoint which is the exact opposite of TB combat.

This is not meant to judge whoever likes Fallout (Ppl like games for different reasons), but at least I'll know which POV certain posters are coming from and know which aspect of Fallout is actually more important to them.

Let's leave the previous issues behind. No point discussing it further - we're merely reiterating our points.

As to your question, well if you place it that way, of course I would choose the latter for obvious reasons - the lesser of two evils.

I think a better way to ask the questions would be:

I would DEFINATELY choose the latter. I just don't think either one applies to FO3 that Beth is trying to promote.

watching u two having a go at this is like being a bystander of a super mutant slugfest. it ain't pretty but since both got a lot of hp's they can do it like.. forever.

as far as combat goes, TB not really important to me. Had my share of frustrations with TB sometimes (eg. fight in New Reno, kill mobsters but the TB takes account of the addicts, pimps, ho's, pushers as well).

I liked the aimed shot definitely but i think i appreciate it because of the funny descriptions on Pipboy. Makes me lol ALL the time.

:lowers INT to 1:
Ugh. Me go now. Ook aak!

Prostitute takes a critical hit to the groin for 364 points. Her child bearing days are over.

Deathclaw takes a critical hit to the eye for 213 points. It is blinded, obviously.

Or something like that... can't remember the exact wordings

Well, to be honest, this is the only game where I read about the previews prior to the reviews. I would think the reason why I even bothered about the previews thats going on in the first place mainly because FO3 is made by a different developer (and a non-trusted one at that...hence all that anxiety).

Normally, if I am interested in a game, I would just checked on the release date to see if it has been delayed or on schedule. I am probably making the wrong assumptions as of now, but how far off can I be in saying that the core aspect of the game has not yet being finalized despite the E3, demo and all when virtually nothing has been stated on their website. Did they did it on purpose or are they just testing the waters?

And yes, whatever it will turn out to be we can only hope that would turn out great. If they are going to some of the things their own style hopefully it will be a polished one. Its not in the method but its all in the implementation.

Thanks to you guys I have a sudden urge to play Fallout again.

Going to start a new game later tonight.

And I've got the urge to start a massacre in New Reno again. Good thing that the fallout mechanics don't allow people to escape from the city. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Me like:
Mutant pig rat was critically hit in eyes for 34 points sending it to the Great Ratcatcher in the sky.

Raider was critically hit in the leg leg for 56 points sending his kneecaps to the next town.

Prostitute was critically hit in the head for 45 hit points crushing her temple. Good night Gracie.

Me tried both. FO more tight-paced but FO2 longer. Me laugh harder in FO2 also. Hyuk hyuk.

:takes 2 Mentats:

The NPC's in FO were a bit stupid though. Not really memorable. I lost Dogmeat to the energy fields in Military Base. Good thing they revamped the NPC interface in FO2.

Tip: If u're playing FO2, trying a playing retard (INT 1) at least once. Really hilarious. i had a blast with the new dialogue with the Elder, Hakunin, and Tor (the idiot in Klamath). I didn't get far after Klamath though. No one wanted to be seen with a spastic. Even Sulik!

Nope, I purposely chose NOT to phrase it as such since the actual Fallout experience is different for so many ppl (Which is the point of the whole question). Like how some consider it to be the TB system or the fact that you can kill children and butcher whole towns.

Anyway, at least Beth is TRYING to follow the latter option. Its not like they outright said "Hey, we're scrapping the combat style AND making it a generic post-apocalyptic setting instead"

Most of the European probably didn't even know Children exist in Fallout 2...it was taken out of the game for PAL release.
For me, killing the Children isn't part of the "needed experience" but i do hope they make an appearance in Fallout 3. Maybe making them invulnerable to attack because with children it will still at least increase the authenticity of the whole Nuclear Fallout apocalyptic feel to the game.


I think the biggest challenge Bethesda having right now is to balance out the game design.
They can't favor the hardcore group too much, just as the new audience. They need to expand the market (in other words, sales figure) but at the same time, not driving away from its root.
Even Black Isle tried to do that with Fallout Brotherhood of Steel, making it a squad-based almost real time combat.

I still don't think the gameplay is the highlight of Fallout game, as in most of the old school RPG game. It's the way they present the game, the story-telling, the open-ended experience and we use our imagination for that matter because obviously the graphic suck & the gameplay isn't outstanding either!

Best part about Fallout is, there are so many different way to play the game and everything you do will affect the outcome of the game sequence.
1. You can play dumb dumb and kill everyone in the game.
2. You can play as a sniper throughout the whole game.
3. You can play Ninja...but probably not that useful.
Or...
4. You can finish the game without firing a single shot. A smooth-talker.
...and many many more.

If Bethesda were able to nail that part of the game and thus increasing the replay value. I don't give a rat ass it's in first person view or top down birdie view. As long as they can make the world of Fallout believable & memorable....I want to play it.
So far, they promise 9-12 ending to the game. Also it has been confirmed you can finish the game without firing a single bullet.

Other than that, It's too early to tell how the game gona turn out because there are still 1 more year of development & tweaking.

This post has been edited by PrivateJohn: Jul 20 2007, 03:25 PM

I also don't think FO3 Beth has either feature. It's totally Oblivion clone with guns disguise with Fallout title.
If Beth make Starcraft: Ghost they will call it StarCraft 2 i am sure hehe.

Btw, Fallout's original combat system is excellent. The system make perfect use of the SPECIAL attributes for your char & the npc. To said it is just another type of TB shows how much one understand Fallout's TB compare to other game's TB.

Based on what? Non of us have even seen the game in action, all we saw are just preview from gamesite in text and nothing from those are concrete yet and the game still have long way to go.

@Combat system.
It's excellent if the combat scale is small to medium...but when you encounter a large group of enemy, it's kinda tedious.
The first time i help the blade in Boneyard, then the guards in the whole town turn hostile towards me...i am like wtf. The waiting is horrible...

Last time, story of a game can only be tell by text, midi audio and crappy 2d sprite graphic. All of this are just tools to help us with our own imagination & fantasy & make it believable.
After 10 years, maybe it's time to try new things and do something that can't be done 10 years ago.
If Bethesda can capture the feel & atmosphere of the Fallout series while changing some mechanic of the game, why not give it a chance???

LOL that sounds funny. I might try that too.. INT 1 brawler. Damn, I guess it's time to go back and have fun again.

Each to his own then.

Go play X-Com, Jagged Alliance or Silent Storm and you'll see just how simplistic Fallout's system is.

Is it solid? Yes. Excellent? Hardly.

This post has been edited by H@H@: Jul 20 2007, 04:29 PM

Ah, but you're comparing tactical games with an RPG. Point taken however. Still, Black Isle dared something different with a hex grid TB combat in a CRPG, something IIRC had never been done before up to that point. Previously someone mentioned helping the blades in the boneyard, and I myself can think of more examples that stressed the TB combat (and my patience), like gang wars in reno, faction fights in new san fran, or even the siera army depot robot gang bang. So yeah, combat in fallout was indeed flawed.

Going off on a tangent, nothing beats the turn based d&d emulation found in Temples of Elemental Evil. Too bad the game was riddled with bugs and never sold well.

EGG-ZACTLY.i couldn't agree more.

there was another game. Arcanum or something. never tried that one. did wonder whether it was any good..

Hmm, when I read your first paragraph I was actually going to quote ToEE on that

Anyway, why is it that TB combat in a CRPG such a big deal when its pretty much a typical Pen & Paper RPG on a PC. The "percentage hit" calculation system is basically hiding a stealth DC check with a random dice roll based on the range, weapon type and skillsets. No biggie.

Hex grid TB combat was used in the original Panzer General games and loads of other strategic TB games (Earthsiege?). Hex grids were pretty much the standard back then as it removes the usual problem of identifying attack zones.

Arcanum is a bore. Lionhead is even worse.

I actually did play the panzer series of games, so I know full well how long hex grid gameplay has been in existance. The reason many equate fallout's hex grid to PnP RPGs was due to the fact that many RPGs back in the day also used a hex grid when it came to combat. IIRC steve jackson games' GURPS (which was to be used in the original fallout until steve jackson himself objected to the violence in the game) was a hex based system. In the era of fast paced real time combat, many saw the slower paced, strategy focused gameplay of fallout to be the be-all-end-all emulation of PnP RPG combat. Certainly the 'aim and shoot a specific area' aspect of fallout's combat would have been impossible to attempt with RT combat, amongst other things.