Gizmo

I always thought (since it was based on TES4), that there should have been a mad "magician" in the wastes blowing up cars and barrels with an enchanted cane. *Edit: I'm guessing there's too many that won't get that one, so... Some how that sounds a lot like Wimpy

Die By the Sword StoneKeep Arx Fatalis Redneck Route 66 Redneck Rides Again Fallout Tactics *Next up will be Spellforce and Sacrifice, Jagged Alliance 2 and Gothic2.

Frank Welker.

What Twink said above, and also that the original games dealt with 8 static targets, whose purpose was to allow the Player to gamble against their PC's skill with the weapon for a chance at greater damage and/or effects at the greater cost of using an aimed shot. The eye shot was always the hardest and had some great possible gains. VATS in FO3 has no real similarity in the sense that VATS seems to gauge by proximity alone, instead of a defined increasing risk for gains ~and that the costs in general are meaningless with the new "decorative" version of AP's.

Disable it entirely. ~Actually... How hard could it be to code a new menu with the original 8 targets and have the PC shoot when it exits, and have the shot "upgraded" based on the original (or modified original) critical damage tables? Mods can kill with a script, and set aggression and equipped weapons. A modified Vats could set a critical effect on the attack... Why not abandon the original VATS all together? (It was flawed when it worked as planned anyway). *I say "junk it"

Absolutely ~and that's something that they should [hopefully] release as an Obsidian FO3 mod (along with any other beneficial changes worked out that could be made compatible with the first game.)

Wait 'til the first scraps of story teasers get released... then the topic will light up.

That's fantastic!

Whoa! This bit of game mechanics needs to be fixed. Is this common? (I never had the perk or the Mesmetron to know).

IMO VATS should be a standard shot [in and out], but do the slo-mo critical if that shot scored an exceptional roll [possibly changing the mechanics to suit, if need be]. With the other Fallouts an aimed shot was the same as a regular one [except for the actual aiming menu and the cost]. I can see a modified VATS as working just like pressing the button to go in, and pressing the button to exit without a shot ~only with a shot , and if there is an awesome critical hit ~then do the cinematic. ~That is how it should have been from the start right?

Given the location, Id like to see some heavy designs for the high-end military 'bots (never mentioned/or existed AFAIK, but they are adding to the setting). Troika showed us a big 'bot in their (that look utterly perfect for the Fallout IP). I know you can't copy Dawn of War (of course), but I'd sure like to see something of this sort in the setting.

Same here; that would be a welcome return. Agreed. In the originals each of the eight targets had a static risk associated with increasing gains. A groin kick for the sake of the visuals would be a waste IMO. I would see them eliminated for all shots not scoring a really great critical strike.~Its old, and moot at this point, but here was a concept example from last year... *** Also, I would love to see a few non-generic hand keyframed over the top critical deaths, (there, but never over used) to go along with the standard Havok (which seems always over used and gets old pretty fast IMO). *** Its a fact though, that [ironically], any serious deviation from FO3 (like making perks come every 3 or 4 levels) would see the fans of the previous game [FO3] a little put off at the unexpected nature of the new title . So I cannot expect the damage undone. In sales, you can always lower your prices, but try to raise them and... Perks have been changed and I would expect them to remain (but hopefully reworked a bit ~whatever that really means )

The games reflect the company (when speaking of in-house projects). The company has (to examine their TES series), shown an interest in simplifying the scope of their game mechanics in each new iteration of their series. ~Will this continue with FO4? (and will it be encouraged of FO:NV?). Does that mean... hmmm, What does that mean? (FPP RT combat? You'd have to be kidding... FPP RT combat pre-dates Wasteland, and was a staple throughout the 1990's and the present day.) (Or stepping away from Turnbased? That's what the series was based on and conceived for, and IMO its a shame that they've strayed. The new series choice of play mechanics leaves a gaping hole when compared, and with coming out later in the year (or next), TB games cannot be said to be a relic from the past. Its also not the case that TB games are surpassed by RT games when RT games were developed first, and cannot compete on the same field when it comes to the intended scope in most TB games). In these we mostly agree

double post.

Well I guess the question about game mechanics, is will they be like FO3 or like the rest of the entire series? (Or in the least... lean one way or the other.) Myself I expect that FO3:NV will [iMO sadly] follow FO3 about as close as FO2 followed FO1. Great news for most I guess.

Personally I really liked the way they did it, and it was a welcome redundancy. First Aid was a quick fix (for 25 XP), while Doctor was an involved fix (for 50 XP and twice the time). Doctor was for removing cripple effects while First aid was for patching damage. Together it meant the player had 6 heals but only 3 chances to remove cripple effects, and the second skill could not be increased with books so it had to be a skill developed at great expense ~That's a character focus that not all PC's will have. Merging skills is always a bad idea in RPG's because it leads to JoaT character builds that are essentially all the same. Having varied skills that are tough to raise creates opportunities for skill checks in the game that can be used to open options that only make sense for those PC's that have them developed. Yes it was!

I'd want the options for... A Functional Casino. Card counting software for the PIP; Tinkering with the MR. Handy Card dealers. A Casino vault to heist. I'd expect a Ghoulish lounge act or two; Far more expanded variations on robitics (think Spielberg's AI), and poker chips as ammo for the Rock-It Launcher.

I would bet...

I'll second that one! There should be at least two...

Is it the case [here] that most everyone on these boards either did not play Fallout 1 or 2, or liked the series' setting and little else? Did no one appreciate Tim Cain's GURPS engine (redone to SPECIAL)? Does absolutely no one think the third game should have continued to improve upon the series' premise instead of jumping ship for an Elderscrolls style PA simulator? Is it truly the case that most playersjust want a First Person sandbox where they get to wander around and shoot stuff and pretend to be in the wasteland? That's all I saw to do in the game was wander around killing random creatures, and not so random creatures, and a few gimmick gags like megaton or placing a mine in someone's pocket... BTW~ What if I wanted to give a bottle cap mine to an NPC? Is there any way to put it in their inventory without arming it? Even the player's choice to arm/and set timers was removed. IMO the scope of the game was heinously reduced to just that... a PA simulator [and of a misinterpreted setting at that.] I have high hopes for FO:New Vegas, because its depressing not to... Its a good bet that FO:New Vegas will be a stand alone expansion for FO3, with an amazing story, intricate dialog ~Likely many concepts brought over from Alpha Protocol, and a few really neat twist.... but despite all that, I'd expect it to be the same crappy base game for most of the time spent. *That is the first time that I have ever described it as such, but it really sunk in today. I've been playing Die By The Sword, and its simply more fun than Oblivion or Fallout 3 (and its fun in the way FO1 & 2 were ~despite being entirely dissimilar games ~and not even an RPG). See, I play these games for the gameplay, and the characters... not to be the characters. I liked BG2 for Jan & Yoshimo, Minsc and Xar ~and Xan. I don't want to play at being any of them though. I like that the PC in DBTS has an attitude, taunts his opponents, and comments on his [my] mistakes. I'm not interested in living out his life or in his world, I'm interested in seeing his world and him and the rest in it. Fallout did that superbly. With Fallout I could see the ravaged remains of the pop 50's culture, and the Vault Dweller entangled in the midst of all of it. I never pretended that I grew up in the vault, I just got to peek into the life of the next poor soul sent out to find the water chip, and follow his exploits across the locations and NPC's that he met along the way ~some friends some foes, some allies. Everything was with an element of distance and detachment ~and I liked that; It was a good part of the 1st and 2nd games (and in Tactics too). In FO even the conversations were conducted through a detached interface (they didn't have to do it that way, they could have done it just the way Bethesda did ~with a static background and a talking head). FO3 forces an FPP vantage that both hides the vast landscapes and pushes you into being this baby/teen/adult from the vault [which no one can really identify with ~but it doesn't matter as the game takes no notice]. In FO3 players have lost the ability to carefully survey the battle and decide their best course for surviving along with their NPC's if they have them. Its a bitter irony that FO is often accused of having had click-n-wait gameplay, and now it really is just point shoot wait, and shoot again gameplay and folks love it. So if its true that most of the new players out there just want a 2nd life, well I can't identify with that, and I hold it a shame that a company would rewrite an established franchise as simpler, faster paced distinctly different game when they could have just as easily made the same game as a spin-off title with a non-digit name that none of their existing fans would have been the wiser of or would care if they did know. What I see is that future installments of my second favorite franchise will no longer provide even a bit of the experience that drew me to the series in the first place. I tried playing FO3, but could not stomach it past Megaton so I turned to GECK modding. At this point (other than art ~that's the only redeeming feature of the money spent.)

It would surely be possible to do it the other way... Use FO3's assets and engine to make a Fallout 1 or 2 clone. I don't know many that would want an outright remake ~the first two are fine already... but I'd be very interested if they did that using a new campaign.

That's a good analogy. * I find that I cannot read your posts without hearing them as might be done by Frank Oz in his best Yoda. [or Grover ]

You and I have very different ideas about what constitutes "cool." A game wasting my time because it gave me awful directions doesn't count in my book. It was a lie or a mistake... has that never happened to all of us? The same thing is in the original Fallout where one of the early NPC's you meet sends you in not quite the right direction because they don't really know better[and why should they?]. *I find it more believable myself that NPC's are not omnipotent guides all of the time or about all regions outside of their own.

That's just part of the whole... Its [sort of] the same thing as as watching a musical and accepting that all the players burst into song. (It not exactly the same... but its similar). As for what fits and what doesn't... See I can accept a diner crowd breaking into a dance number, and an ex-fiance using a Light Anti tank Weapon at her ex-groom, and I can accept a blind pawn shop owner firing a pistol at a 13 year old as a warning shot, but I could never accept anyone in the film pulling a knife and stabbing someone with it. [i assume that most everyone here will immediately get the film reference ] Fallout had the RadScorpions from Damnation Alley, and it had a few quirks like pulling a minigun out of a skintight blue bodysuit... But on the whole it was quasi serious unless you were out in the wild [unexplored wasteland].

This mean what though? I mean really? The artist will work as told (and honestly, what need be different from them?); Coders couldn't care less, they design the behaviors asked of them. If someone can't do the job, they give them a different one or let them go... The established TES gameplay is unsuitable ~period... The engine I've no qualms with, and they are more than capable of twisting it any which way that they please ~so they could have made the game fit the expectations of the series. Irrelevant no? The point was not "whether they would", but rather "assuming it was given them to make such a game"... They don't [about Fallout], and they've proved it time and again using their own words, and press appearances. [and again with some of the changes in the DLC]. I've watched the Bethsoft Fallout threads from day one, and saw the infamous "suggest a perk" contest. [infamous because out of 17,000 entries they picked the one that ripped off Rune and devalues the AP's even more than they are normally]. They have done a fantastic job with the visuals ~the landscapes, the interiors (better than could be expected), They've set the perfect stage, but they shoot themselves in the foot with "out of series gameplay goals" ~designed for fans of different series. They studied Halo and Call of Duty to design their combat component instead of the previous 3 games in the series they were continuing. ~And the toilet drinking... All games have bugs and exploits but that is not something they missed. They had the budget to hire original team members to give them the inside understanding of the series that you just don't get from looking at the final result. ~Its like watching a blacksmith make an ornate Iron fitting... Just watching, and even studying the piece later, will not tell you how its done. Personally I'd have preferred them to have hired one or more of the series devs as consultants for a week (early in the planning stages) instead of Liam Neson. You don't do that with a sequel; What sense does it make to tie your new game to an old name that is not of interest to anyone but a previous fan? Why bother? You can take the basics and make the rest up and most people won't care. I think the great irony here would be Viking : Battle for Asgard for example, Creative Assembly I'd say they're well known for the accuracy of the Total war series, but Viking : Battle for Asgard is a damn perversion of norse mythology. Hollywood are the kings inaccuracy, they seem to get away with it . So really it depends on what you're intending to achieve with the game, a super realistic FPP title based on welsh myth would never make it past the first round of pitches at most if not all companies. Saying this is a means to avoid the analogy? Surely you catch that the subject itself is moot, its the simple premise that one hires help with a subject they are unsure of. I could point out fifty examples, but I expect giving a face to any would garner replies like "Plumbers have nothing to do with software design", or "Why would I need to hire an electrician to change a fuse" ~these are not the point.... (This is not solely at you ~yours was not too extreme, but so many from Bethsoft's threads take analogies dead-pan literally which is never appropriate.) Except that this was what the series was; Its what it was founded on and it was the point of the game... To take just the names and the mascot and brand an alien title with its name is disingenuous to say the least. Better left dead IMO... As much as I hate it... the old argument is true... McDonalds sells a lot of hamburgers, but that hardly makes them quality food, or does justice to the concept of a good burger ~But its what the masses want, and what they will pay for. FO3 is [a McHybrid RPGlite] and that's not a bad thing in and of itself, but its dragging the other two down. Consider Relics Dawn of War2, and Blizzard's Diablo 3, and Starcraft 2, and Disciples 3 from Akella/Dat ~sequels all, and it shows. It doesn't show in FO3. No offense taken ~I never do... ... But their respect (having read many reviews) often shows little knowledge or concern for the series integrity.