Gizmo

I really [totally] disagree with this. The WaterChip quest gave you immediate direction... Your vault was dying and had to be saved (or the game wouldn't bother letting you play anymore ); While it would make sense to have the option to let them die and go about your own life... Timed quests are still a good thing ~timers in general. Like with Necropolis in F1 ( ). The thing I couldn't stand more than all else in Oblivion was that the whole world could be on the virge of destruction if you don't do something about it... and you can go camping the mountains for a month ~and it waits for you. Timed events and quests make it mandatory that you decide to do them or not; The idea that you could be begged to go fetch a poison cure... and get around to returning weeks later to a thankful NPC that hastily takes the drug... is nuts.

Have you never played a PnP RPG with assigned characters? Personally I don't see the problem. Nameless was not a player designed character because the game was about an immortal that had walked the ages, and forgotten his past. A 25th level character in all disciplines, slowly recalling past professions and old memories. RPG's are all about R-playing the PC, but none are dependent on user created PC's. Even Baldur's Gate had a mandatory backstory for the main character, its just that that story could allow for any kind of child to be Gorion's ward; Planescape called a specific man with a past ~and that's what the player got.

Interesting reading... [on the subject]http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/V.A.T.S.

You can in Mass Effect. I've never played Mass Effect... What's the draw for choosing to play a Sniper in that one?

Getting shot [or even kicked] in the testicles can certainly be fatal. That's no non-lethal option. Eight Called shots were part of the original game mechanics; that's reason enough to retain them IMO.*Also... can you role play a sniper without called shots?

It does work that way though, at least with limbs. Shoot the mob in the gun arm and they drop the weapon. After they pick it up, their aim is horrible. Shooting the mob in the head often kills them outright, but at very least, they stop shooting at you for a second or two (hands to face animation) and that might be enough to take them down. The eye and groin thing, along with the overland map, are mostly FO1/2 trappings that those folks miss in this game. Traditionally the called shots in Fallout were all more expensive and less likely to succeed (it even seemed to me that standard torso hits actually hit more often than called torso hits ~despite having the same percentage to hit); Called shots were a deliberate gamble. The player gambled the PC's skill against the odds, for a chance at a devastating critical. The targets were not arbitrary; Each one had a fixed level of difficulty (commensurate with the risk vs gain). Leg shots could destroy the enemies freedom to move ~making repositioning very expensive, Arm shots affected their Aim, Groin shots almost always ignored the targets armor completely, while Head shots had the potential to knock out opponents and tactically this was very very useful if you could pull it off [iE. well worth the gamble] ~you could even unload their guns and steal their ammo while they were out... Torso shots were the cheapest and not that great, but like the head and eye shot they had the potential of an outright kill if you were lucky. The Eye shot [as mentioned] could kill outright, but was more likely to blind, and nearly always ignored the equipped armor. These targets were of deliberately increasing [sTATIC!] difficulty, and Fallout 3 hosed all of that for a simplified proximity based chance to hit. well, because it's role-playing and getting specific adds to the scenario. not only that, but the text-box descriptions of what happens to the enemy if you've targeted a certain area was a big part of what gave Fallout that "Fallout feel", knowhutimean? Indeed, The Groin shot always had a secondary purpose (to me at least, if one must disclaim); In addition to the above, it also allowed the player to make things "personal". I can recall a few times (in a few games) when a raider or mutant hurt Dogmeat bad, and I marched the PC past other targets towards the one that hurt "my" dog, just to super sledge them in the groin (male or female), because I wanted to, even though the PC had a ranged weapon equipped, and could have shot them from a distance ~its just not the same. *If you're lucky, you hit them hard, and get to watch them fly back 10 feet and get to read the text account of their injury.

Sounds like something Rob Schneider would say. * Or Stimpy... On the subject of guns... How about putting in a good twenty or thirty and let the player decide if they like it or if its crap, or collectible [merchant fare]. *How about a small caliber pistol with pathetic damage, but adds a few % to hit due to its excellent accuracy and quality; In the hands of an expert, it could be the [close range] weapon of choice for the sharpshooter due to the ease of criticals, and the improved odds of an instant kill. (varied items that are of more use to some than others.)

Oblivion was a lush vista of trees, hills, small plants, and animals; The fantasy setting is believable even with twice the flora & fauna that would realistically be in a RL woods..... Fallout is [was] sparse pockets of humanity (or close enough) spread far and wide, and those locations were days or weeks apart, separated by wasted [blasted] land for miles and miles. I understand the need for compressing the areas, but at some point doesn't it begin to look like a city dump instead of a dumped city? A re-done Map travel could see the PC take off in a direction, and return with the PC's arrival at the destination; during which time a day counter could tick off the travel time. Fallout 1 was fortunate that it's format was well suited to imply the vast wastes without having to actually depict them, Fallout 3 is not so lucky.... but depicting them as a brisk 5 minute walk is somehow shortchanging no? What I've played of Fallout 3 seems to be missing the major special encounters (not copies of old ones of course). I can see that a large part of the original charm was to stumble across something totally bizarre out in the wastes somewhere, and never really be able to find it again.... Going back to the Godzilla Foot, would have been anticlimactic. So what about re-designing the fast travel to behave similarly to the original game? (IE. Pull you out if you stumbled upon something weird and then after a timer [or after combat] ends, resume towards the destination ~the special encounter taking place way out in an inaccessible area made to look like endless wasteland ~and only used for depicting unexpected stops on the trip.)

I never had a problem though... that doesn't mean its flawless or that others didn't, but I did like Gothic 2 better than Oblivion ~and I did like Oblivion (I played it to level 26). *My favorite part of Oblivion was the Arena especially once I learned how to run up the chains on the columns. ** My least favorite part was the time I figured out how to climb over the Arena wall from outside, and saw that it was like a back-lot film setpiece at the old MGM Studios.

a better bet in what way, exactly? Seconded! No offense taken, but I too am curious... Better in what way ~exactly? You might really like Gothic 2 ( unfortunately I have no experience with Gothic 1, and Gothic 3 was gawd-awful from the demo I played )However (and ironically just too similar ), there is a new Gothic being made by a new company. But its not like Arcanum as such... and visually G2 is a bit more like Morrowind ** HAha... Look at this, we are both in luck... http://www.gog.com/en/search/sort/search/gothic

Arcanum was mentioned before... It had a huge map, with overland map travel or cell to cell [area to area] travel.IIRC it supposedly took 48 real life hours to walk across it without fast travel. (though... where I read that bit I haven't a clue anymore ~I never tried it myself). Indeed.

That's how it worked in Fallout 1 (if you had someone mark your map first). I think RAGE will change their mind on a few things before New Vegas comes out. Personally Vehicle to Vehicle combat worked well in the "After the Bomb" RPG setting for the Palladium [PnP] games, and I think it can be made to work here. For an action game VtV combat basically equates [unless you're driving] to just additional hazards to be mindful of ~namely falling off the truck, but the trade off is new combat options to be mindful of ~namely pushing others off the truck.

Let them... its an option, there for that very reason ~right? Consider if the game did just that, but considered you to be traveling quick and hurried, and reduced the chances of your PC finding a special encounter (reduced ~ not removed...). That you could wander across something unique might be an incentive to some (to many I'd think); but also just walking in the desert alone would again set the tone, and be interesting in and of itself. *Secondly... Consider that if they secreted a repairable vehicle or two into the game... the vast flat desert would take on a new function.

Most definitely. It needs it; and a smart/smooth overland travel option would make a good option to go with it.

Its just a guess, but I get the impression that Bethesda is loath to annoy the player, and willing to skew gameplay to ensure that the player never feels at all frustrated ~because they'll ditch the game(?) This would seem to ignore the players who enjoy (or even thrive) on a deeper challenge and are not phased by minor setbacks that make sense. *The idea seems to be to create the perfect 'power trip' simulator, instead of the perfect RPG. ** Its understandable too, as this might appeal to a broad cross-section of the market. ***Sad for some though

IMO ~Given the current options left... It should have been a lot more like KotOR2, (with FPP as an Option as KotOR2 had, but in this case better used). *As I recall, KotOR2 had FPP similar to Nocturne, by 'Terminal Velocity'. **I'd really appreciate official support for WASD + Point & Click (as NWN2/MotB had).

Yeah. *Posting "Amen!" is too corny in my case... After all, its a given.

I would say that it is... Remember that in Fallout 1, and Fallout 2, AP's were finite, and stat/perk dependent. Aimed shots were an expensive option (expensive in time ~which is what AP's represent). The player could choose to invest in an aimed shot or choose a different action, and there was the option of ending your turn, which raised your Armorclass 1 point for each unspent AP (two points with the right perks). Fallout 3's VATS is merely an aimed shot, using APs' that regenerate (IE using time that regenerates !!!?) Its meant to resemble, but does not really work the same or offer the same. Edit: *That they are both [strictly speaking] aimed shots is true [i misread your post at first], but VATS does not really come at a cost like the aimed option in Fallout, and the player never ~ever need worry about using something that's totally free. ~also the AP's are worthless after VATS is exited.

That didn't really bother me. Many games are "forgiving" of player actions in the tutorial sections. I was actually pleasantly surprised that I was allowed to kill the overseer in the first place. The guy was a total jerkface though. But he wasn't that important really... In Fallout if you anger the Overseer, your game is essentially over. In Planescape if you anger mildly annoy "Pen" in the print shop~ he kicks you out and you never get back in How is that bashing, and not a bug? That behavioral defect is the single greatest flaw in Fallout 3 and the Elderscrolls games [iMO] some of us are here to make points known, to suggest options. I suggest the idea of a cleverer AI and it gets dragged through seven posts of defense. You spoke of double standards... that's surely one indeed.

That's nothing... You can beat her to "death" a dozen times, and each time she gets up (after a while), she'll still offer to help you (while surrounded in a room smeared in her own blood). ~Some will say, that its necessary for the plot, but I say that the plot should not have been hinged upon players playing nice, and there should have been three options to account for the unexpected instead of just the one. (Four if you include Failure to escape).

No one will ever need more than 640k (or 16 color EGA ) What I said in my last post meant, 'Give the artist more freedom, and they'll likely do more with it.' An artist might do good work in 4-bit color @ 19x13 pixels, but they can do better in 8-bit @ 38x26. The same holds true with 3d models ~if you don't believe... visit the Z-Brush forum and check out the galleries. *My point was that Fallout had the pattern set for using relatively low detail game sprites with relatively high detail heads; Fallout three did not follow the pattern. Its standard game models could have been paired with something really astounding even in this day and age... but it didn't happen (yet).

Does it happen? (how common is it that NPC's lie to you ~Note: I have read that Bethesda had a running policy that NPC cannot lie... though this may have since changed). That's the problem, The PC never has reason to feel bad about anything ~and no surprises. In the one case with Megaton, if you play a character that will jump through the hoops to blow up the town... Odds are you won't feel bad, and I doubt you can do it by carelessness (though I never tried to). Then what happens? The choice the player has to make in this situation is "do I want to get involved?", and by getting involved they are putting themselves in a position to discover the truth. This is a pretty common situation in RPGs. Does anything like it ever happen in Fallout 3? I was merely pointing out that there is no clever AI involved in what you're asking for, it's really basic. If the game keeps track of player actions, either on a reputation screen the player can view, or completely behind the scenes, then quests can be offered or denied based on past actions. For example, an NPC might deny you a diplomatic mission as they don't believe you're up to the task based on your history of violence. But it's impossible for the AI to determine if the player can be lied to, because the game can't determine your reasons for choosing a quest. That's no excuse to dismiss having one.*Unless Fallout 3 doesn't warrant the need. An artist does what they can with what they have available... Give an artist the freedom to tax the engine with one model, and stand back in awe...

This thread is diverse... too diverse. ~Way back somewhere I responded about the Heads in Fallout being incredible for their day, and how IMO Fallout 3' (for their day) are not ~but should be. Before I saw anything concrete about Fallout 3 I had hoped they would choose a close format to the series, and I saw that if the games were the same ISO/3rd person style (but in 3d of course), that they could continue the behavior of the first two concerning the heads. (IE. to transition from high Iso to close up face to face dialogs). This I thought, would surely allow them to use much more detailed heads in the 3rd Fallout; but not have to deal with swapping out high and low models in real time in front of the player. I really was thinking something along the lines of one head taxing the engine to its limits. ~Instead of the standard model head scaled up, rather a real endeavor (sort of like the F1 heads that took weeks to sculpt , digitize, and animate, and how they were a marked improvement from the standard Fallout 1 heads ). I was thinking something like this *Unfortunately I don't know if that's practical now, given the bent for FPP, and that you can walk up to an NPC and just speak...

Why indeed. Planescape did this sort of thing long before Fallout 3, but the player only sees [Lie] for their own responses. I was speaking of being plausibly lied to by an NPC. (say like a kid running away from an attacker, and the attacker runs after him shouting "stop thief!" ~say the PC stops the kid and the kid gets caught because of him.) **I'm not literally asking for any of these in the new game, I was just proposing that a slightly cleverer AI be considered. The example was not the request, the clever AI was.

Yeah, but which one?If you walk walk into a crowded bar with one hostile enemy... They're all potentials ~ without the awareness perk (which implies an especially astute PC). ~well... not always. Something I liked about the Fallout perks was that some were for the player specific, and would modify the game for them, like change the color code for friends, or add color codes for emotional responces from NPC's. *Ha, how about a TB perk As it is... (and I'm asking because I don't know)... In Fallout 3, is there an NPC (or is it possible) that lies to you about a quest? The original intent of the village example [regardless of the details] was that the player might feel they acted brashly [possibly feel regret]; and understand that they should decide with care who they trust.