FO: NV

[Slowtrain]

For the amount of times Fallout 3 crashes I want an autosave every 3 minutes

 

 

lol. I have the same problem. I haven't played a game that crashes as much as FO3 in a long time.

 

 

I thought it was just my system though.

[J.E. Sawyer]

But I guess modern rpg design is all about "Well, if the player wants to coast through on one combat skill alone, let them" which I totally disagree with, but it's an angle that's been proven to work with audiences and in that case a complete Big Guns arc would make sense.

If the weapons covered by any given skill had a distinct set of characteristics that made them more or less valuable in different situations, there would still be advantages to buying up multiple combat skills.

 

makes much more sense. pistols v. rifles is always an intuitive and easy division for those who insist on splitting. 'course pistols v. rifles still fails with big guns, don't it? also, for those who insist on reality, pistols is fail compared to rifles.

"A handgun is a good thing to use to fight your way to your rifle."

 

Well, maybe this is meta knowledge, but it's easy to intuit that rocket launchers and laser rifles are obviously going to be more powerful than pistols and knives and therefore be "end-game" stuff.

A lot of people I've talked to played Fallout 3 and didn't know what skills governed what weapons. Part of this has to do with UI feedback, but it's telling that several people expected things like sniper rifles and hunting rifles to be covered by Big Guns.

[Aristes]

This is like the folks who want to go through an entire DnD game using a 20' long pike. Good Lord, are they compensating for something? It's unfortunate, because I think bhlaab is entirely right. Folks want to use whatever weapon they want, which is cool, but some of those weapons are absolutely stupid. It's like WoW, with it's weapons that are larger than the characters who weild them. Maybe not that bad, but it seems that way.

 

As far as different firearms go, I would think that there would be plenty of times that you would rather use a pistol or a rifle than a rocket launcher. I can even think of some cases where you'd rather use a pistol than a rifle. ...And energy weapons are, as folks have said, essentially the same as other weapons types, only changing out the ammunition. Gatling Lasers? Alien Blasters? Plasma Rifles? I agree whole heartedly with folks who want to scrap the old categories and put new categories in the game. This is especially true in light of the anecdotal evidence Sawyer cites about the confusion some players have regarding weapon types. Frankly, while these might be isolated incidences, intuitively, it makes sense to me that some folks would be confused. This is especially true since there is no real frame of reference for big guns in a lot of early game. I mean, the first firearm the PC receives in all three games is a pistol. If you're not a freaking crazy gun nut, then it's actually sensible to figure that a sniper rifle, which is considerably larger than that pistol you first found, is a 'big gun.' Now, if the player had read the descriptions, it would make more sense to him, so he does have some responsibility. Nevertheless, it's not all his fault.

 

Something else that seems true in a lot of games, from fantasy to modern warfare to sci fi, is that the player can pick his weapon and super specialize. This is along the lines of what bhlaab was saying. On one hand, I don't think that's such a terrible thing. Go ahead and allow folks to specialize in one weapon type. On the other hand, it does mean a lot of wasted hours investing in a variety of weapons that a lot of folks don't use. I've never been a fan of big guns in the Fallout games. I guess the nuke rocket launcher was handy for some tough battles, but not even necessary as I recall. Even then, the player could get by with small guns until energy weapons came along. I don't know if more players used big guns because of the coolness factor or fewer players used big guns because of the logistical nightmare of using them. Crashgirl mentions the terrible repair system, and that simply must be a factor for other players. I know that I find it irritating. No big deal in the long run, but frustrating for players who like to nab all the loot. Hey, punish those players for nabbing all the loot, but punish them for choosing a weapon? Especially since the consensus seems to be that the big gun category is a natural progression for players 'in the know.'

 

Since so much of the Fallout cache comes from weapon variety in the setting, you can't really scrap it, but the ability to carry around several nuke rockets is dumbfounding. I guess the howls from folks who would miss it might be deafening, but it seems to me that it's a simple thing to remove from the NV title. I can't believe it would be a deal breaker. I think all weird or simply crazy weapons should be toned down. Maybe one nuclear rocket, and that's actually put in the game for a specific purpose and you're making it hard on yourself by wasting it on a random raider. If big guns are going to be norm, then make them more readily accessible, as folks up and down the line have said, and certainly try to make it as clear as possible which weapons fit into which category.

[Gromnir]

"This is like the folks who want to go through an entire DnD game using a 20' long pike. "

 

no. no it ain't.

 

in d&d, at the very worst, you got proficiency in simple weapons... which includes ranged and melee weapons. have never actually met somebody who thought they could/should be able to use a 20' pike in every situation, but d&d not really impose that kinda dilemma on folks in any event. a weaponmaster who has super-specialized with a falchion is still capable o' picking up a morningstar and bashing the stuffing out of some creature resistant to slashing weapons... and the same weapon master can and will use a bow to shoot at a flying enemy. old kensai maybe is examples of d&d situation in which a character is bound to one weapon, but in such a case we cannot recall a player ever having chosen a 20' pike. d&d is a squad-based tactical combat game as much as it is a rpg... so all characters is presumed to have some viable combat skills. fo, on the other hand, treats combat skills and non-combat skills as being part o' same pool. is indeed possible to complete gimp your fo character insofar as combat efficacy is concerned.

 

but heck, let us go with the 20' pike and see where the analogy takes us. imagine a character who specializes in pike weapons... takes 4 levels o' fighter just so he can be specialized in pike. hooray. the thing is, the dm running the d&d campaign in question decides that no pike will be available in game til level 6 is attained... is simply too advanced a weapon. woulda' been nice if you got the memo, eh?

 

maybe reverse... make pike analogous to small guns in earlier fo games. your pike worked wonderful from level 1 through 12, but then for some reason, pike not work so well no more. every creature you encounter is effective pike resistant. wtf. 'course there is a special uber pike that gots a limited number of uses... the gauss pike. hey, is your fault for not specializing in flails earlier. think you can get through whole game as a pike specialist? everybody knows that at level 13 and above you need flails.

 

sounds pretty ridiculous, eh? d&d analogy? can't find one, 'cause d&d rules, as stoopid as they is, does not present same dilemma as does fo categories. even so, am recalling more than a few characters who played archers in d&d and they rarely used a weapon other than bow... and nobody thought that were the least bit strange or impractical.

 

'course fo3 renders much o' the weapon choice stuff moot. you need such a minimal number o' skill points to be effective with a given weapon, and those skill points is so plentiful that you can pretty much be good with any fallout 3 weapon. but how many of us knew that we could reach 100 in a majority o' the available skills w/o even trying?

 

btw, we assumed d&d pre 4th edition, 'cause 4e makes it even more plausible to get through entire 20 levels using only a single weapon.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aristes]

I've as yet not seen 4 edition. My comments regarding the 20' pike have more to do with weapon choice on the part of the player. I can appreciate the commentary, but the idea that saying that DnD isn't as bad as Fallout doesn't say much for either DnD or Fallout. I don't think there is a particular problem with the ruleset in DnD so much as the design team catering to folks' exotic weapon desires. I find the idea that scythes and the like have some sort of equal footing with swords ridiculous on its face. I suppose someone might post a couple dozen links or so 'proving' that scythes were in equally widespread use as an infantry weapon or that pikes were the prefered weapon of individuals dueling each other in close quarters. CRPG DnD games sport an increasingly large assortment of melee weapons in order to accomodate folks fixating on one particular weapon, even to the detriment of the setting.

 

Your response seems to be that it's no big deal with DnD, which is fair enough. What I'm also getting from you is that you think the problem is worse in Fallout. Hell, I agree. That's what I'm saying. This is where I think straight shooters have a distinct advantage. I might prefer the shotgun while someone else prefers the smg, but we're going to use both during a game of Halflife. Sure, I might never bother with the smg later in the game because I have a variety of weapons available to me, which is exactly the point. There are times and places where different weapons come in handy. I don't think any of the Fallout games have explored the idea particularly well, but pistols are lighter weight and easier to conceal than rifles. From my experience, which is admittedly well in the past, a pistol is easier to draw from a holster than a rifle is to unsling and bring to bear. We don't have any notion of these things in a Fallout game. It's simply a matter of firepower and range stacked up against resistances. ...And who the hell ever heard of carrying a rocket launcher around some of the narrow and confined hallways such as we see in Fallout 1/2? You'd end up killing yourself. Real life might not be the best basis for deciding on design, but certainly it would make a bit more sense for players to have a sidearm available for situations where they don't want to fire that rocket six feet ahead of them. I kind of figured that's what two weapon slots were meant to accomplish in Fallout 1/2, but I never really paid that much attention. Now we have a nuclear rocket launcher. ...And, what? We're going to use it on a target in the same room? I don't have a problem with the nuclear rockets per se. Fine, leave them in, but the whole arrangement strikes me as strange.

 

In tems of my own personal beefs, however, I don't really care all that much about the weapons. They can stay the way they are for all I care. I have my own nitpicking to do, but it's not all that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. What I do hate is the way repair works and being forced to carry around several duplicate copies of weapons. That's one of the reasons I just finally gave up on the Rail Gun in FO3. It's heavy and you're forced to build several just to keep one in working order. ...And there are better weapons anyhow. It would be a nice little weapon to have, but it's not worth the hassle.

[Gromnir]

am still not getting aristes. consider the huge potential range o' weapons that is covered by small guns group. pistols and rifles and grenade launchers, etc. small guns not = 20' pike... not by a long shot. also consider that you can has at least 1 companion in group. so, why exactly should Gromnir thinks that to get through game we is gonna need significant personal expertise in more than one very broad weapon group. what is difference 'tween energy weapons and small guns anyways? all the energy weapons is pretty much same as small guns, save that they use light or plasma (HA!) rather than metal propelled by chemical explosive. laser pistol seems to fill exact same role as a .357 magnum, no? big guns IS a bit different, but again, you can has a companion so if heavy lifting is needed...

 

also, as this is a crpg, why does Gromnir need to have big guns to get through game. imagine the hew and cry if 2/3 through game it sudden became obvious that you absolute needed lockpicking skills to get through game. is kinda antithetical to whole fallout philosophy o' free choices o' skills... but people seems to categorize combat skills different. why?

 

in d&d, which is far better than fallout (not just a smidge better) your fighter character is gonna be proficient with all simple and martial weapons... is simply that he specializes in only a couple specific weapons. d&d makes far more sense than does fallout. am recalling characters blowing selves up in fallout games 'cause they couldn't use rocket launcher properly. HA! am still trying to figure out the big skills needed for rocket launchers.

 

am not getting it... really. where does assumption come from that multiple weapon group specialization would/should be needed by a single fallout character? and please... no 20' pike hyperbole.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[cronicler]

Forum is gone nuts again

 

Anyway, on Tabletop We (I and some of my player and storyteller/gamemaster/dumgeonmaster/whatever pals) had tried to make the system a bit more... plausible? workable? less irrational?

 

The best we could come up with (stealing a lot from gurps) was classifying the combat skills under pistols, rifles and exotics (With a host of subskills like exotic weapons: flamethrower, Exotic weapon bow etc). To further balance the whole issue we generally used "exotic weapon skill= 4/5 of rifle or pistol skill, where appropirate (like ew:crossbow uses 4/5 rifle score as base and ew:flaregun uses 4/5 pistols as base etc) and generally winged it for the truly exotic or unrelated things like bows and slings.

 

This method is actually pretty solid in execution but then again, it is a real strong departure from the fallout system. I don't think Obsidian will go for such (or similar) a rebuilding of basic skill parameters.

 

Then again, with the totally useless/irrelevant skill system we/obsidian inherits from the Fallout 3, They might be able to wing such a departure (Wonder if Bethesda has any say in these game mechanics issues?)

[Pop]

A lot of people I've talked to played Fallout 3 and didn't know what skills governed what weapons. Part of this has to do with UI feedback, but it's telling that several people expected things like sniper rifles and hunting rifles to be covered by Big Guns.

Back when I was 11 and I was playing the Fallout demo from a PC Gamer disc, I made this exact mistake. The Pipboy picture (I almost wrote "VATS Boy" and thus I am now preparing to wash my ears out with bleach) for the Small Guns skill featured an SMG and I wasn't too keen on reading minutae for a game I had barely played at that point. Was a bit surprised when I tagged big guns and couldn't work a shotgun. Shotguns get pretty big compared to SMGs!

[Aristes]

"and please... no 20' pike hyperbole."

 

Then how about a Scythe hyperbole? I don't think it's a matter of what the game allows players to use. It's a matter of what players want to have available to them. In PnP DnD, the DM can work around the dynamics of the group. In a CRPG, the weapons available to suit any player's tastes must be available to every player despite taste, so we get a hodgepodge of exotic weapons. Sometimes, it seems excessive to me. That's not a problem with the ruleset. It's because some player wants to use a scythe or long spear and thinks it should be just as viable as a sword. However, while there are regions that, at one point or another, used exotic sorts of weapons, most don't. That's why they're considered exotic. *shrug* Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I always find it jarring. At any rate, I simply don't believe that a scythe should have a technical advantage over the sword in any ruleset. We're not even talking player tates there. If your setting favors halberds, fine. There is a historical example of widespread halberd use. It's certainly feasible. If your setting favors the use of Scythes, that's cool for the exact same reason. However, DnD CRPGs seem to include a vast weapon repertoire despite the setting. That's because players want them. I find it personally distracting.

 

Otherwise, in terms of Fallout, I don't see our dispute. I guess you might want to turn this into one of your acrimonious arguments. Okay. I know better than to try to stop that. I guess I could say, "if we leave out the reference to the 20' pike, would you still have a beef?" Or maybe I could point out that I said, "What I'm also getting from you is that you think the problem is worse in Fallout." How about "...And energy weapons are, as folks have said, essentially the same as other weapons types, only changing out the ammunition. Gatling Lasers? Alien Blasters? Plasma Rifles? I agree whole heartedly with folks who want to scrap the old categories and put new categories in the game." Would that stave off making this a personal argument between the two of us that will last for several pages? Maybe you'd like me to bow before your imminence and simply say, "I was wrong, oh great Gromnir?"

 

I get that you feel like I attacked DnD unfairly, but as it seems to me you then went on to create a conflict in regards to Fallout where we don't have one. I doubt this will work, but if we put the DnD discussion aside what exactly is your problem with my position? It is almost identical to yours at any rate. *shrug* I'd rather not have a bitter dispute because I used "20' pike" in an example, but I'm not going to slink off with my tail between my legs because you feel the need to flex your message board muscles. Just sayin'.

[Gromnir]

am still not seeing your point... really. attack d&d is fine with Gromnir, 'cause we does all the time. but am not seeing no plausible comparison 'tween 20' pike and fo weapons categories.

 

am not getting why it seems strange that a choice o' small guns or big guns or energy weapons as a player's sole weapon choice should be odd or unplayable. as we mentioned, people would go nutters if they got 2/3 of way through game and found out they need lock pick to progress, so why is ok to presume multiple weapon skills is necessary, particularly when they is such broad categories?

 

in d&d even if you choose to specialize in a weapon, (regardless of whether or not it is dagger, mace, longsword dagger or pike) you ain't consigned to fail if you use another weapon.

 

in d&d, if you choose to specialize or focus in a particular weapon, you can be damned sure you is gonna have access to that weapon before you get 1/3 through campaign/game.

 

etc.

 

is not a board battle thing or a d&d defense thing... am just not seeing any parallels.

 

"The best we could come up with (stealing a lot from gurps) was classifying the combat skills under pistols, rifles and exotics (With a host of subskills like exotic weapons: flamethrower, Exotic weapon bow etc). To further balance the whole issue we generally used "exotic weapon skill= 4/5 of rifle or pistol skill, where appropirate (like ew:crossbow uses 4/5 rifle score as base and ew:flaregun uses 4/5 pistols as base etc) and generally winged it for the truly exotic or unrelated things like bows and slings."

 

yeah, is pretty straightforward and intuitive to go with pistols and rifles being separate, but as Gromnir mentioned and josh clarified, rl pistols is sux compared to rifles. anybody hung-up on rl is gonna choke on his own bile... and they is gonna go absolute ape if you gots pistol wielder effective dual wielding.

 

Gromnir would be perfectly happy with 1 marksman skill, as were suggested earlier, but by doing so you has made melee skill even more fail in comparison, and you gotta come up with a bunch o' new perks too... balancing perks/feats has been pretty problematic with all such systems that adopt the perk/feat route.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

This thread is getting a bit long...

 

Continued here (with copies of the last couple of posts).