Fallout: New Vegas

[TriggerHappyJoe]

My only problem with F3 is that after a while it's to repetitive and i know that there has been a nuclear holocaust but some places/things would remain largely un-affected

 

[Octorok]

I'm nervous about Obsidian making it. They screwed up to of my favorite IPs (Neverwinter Nights and KotOR). So unless the Obisidian making this one is very different from the one I've grown to hate, the New Vegas is going to suck.

I loved the original two Fallouts, even though I preferred FO3 to the both of them, but I'm hoping that they'll do a good job.

Sorry to double post, but I remembered one more thing. Why are we going back to this area? There are so many interesting places in the United States ALONE that could be used. I feel like that whole area and landscape has been done to death.

Vegas? How has it been done to death? You seem to miss the fact that 50's Vegas is very, very different to modern Vegas. Vegas in the fifties was the haven of gangsters and crooks, with only a few large casinos and hotels, plus once an area has been Falloutsed (bombed, made to look like the fifties, bombed again, then sprinkled with civilisation) it becomes an entirely different place altogether.

I was referring to the general area of the Arizona and Nevada deserts, which is where the first two took place. I seem to remember one of the settlements basically being Las Vegas, but perhaps I'm mistaken? I'm just saying that I'm tired of revisiting the nuked out desert wasteland.

Actually Fallout was set in Southern California while Fallout 2 was, roughly, set in Oregon. And you're thinking of New Reno perhaps? A Vegas'y like location, but definitely not on the same scale as the whole Vegas area.

 

[Smokepuddle]

When they make New Vegas please for the love of god let there not be anything remotely like little lamplight. One slip of the finger and you're attacked by a horde of invincible children with guns.

 

[Feralbreed]

[/quote]
They should make the game less like Oblivion and more like the classic Fallouts. Sorry to alienate people new to the series, but they really should up the difficulty more, and make it so that its not so favorable towards the player in VATS.

And finally, they should up the gore even more.[/quote]

I didn't even play the original Fallouts but I agree. Anything away from Oblivion is good, F3 is a good game but it still has that scary, plastic oblivion world feel to it...a little. And yes, I didn't use VATS so much. I like to aim the gun mysef, and that's gonna be bit of a problem, especially in close-combat. The aiming controls are a bit clunky..

 

[orangebandguy]

The amount of good karma you get for the most pointless things. I'd like it to be easier to maintain that neutral karma level.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Considering Fallout is an RPG and not a full-blown FPS, I have no problems with the combat. And why do you complain about taking damage because it will waste your "valuable stimpaks", when later you say that you will have tons of them in the end? And who has heard of a game with guns where you don't get shot before you get near someone to melee them?

Because in the beginning you have very few.
And it isn't fair if one play style (sneaking, sniping, V.A.T.S.) has you keep more resources (stimpacks can be sold for money), that's why I think they should have an other health system (see my last post).

Isn't fair? Isn't fair? My good sir, there are different classes in RPG's for a different reason. When you pick sniper, you do so because you want to keep your distance and strategically kill your enemies without taking damage. When you pick assault-rifles or big guns, your going to go in there and get your hands dirty, but you must still be strategic. Mines, grenades, where to shoot the enemy, all these things are important.

Sniper is much easier to take on enemies from a distance, but when you are apprehended from behind by a Super Mutant, you're not going to be able to fight back. Small/big guns aren't great for long distance fighting, but get close enough for a surprise attack and shoot down the enemy before they shoot you, that's the way you play it.

There is a health bar because you are supposed to embrace the fact that you need to use strategy. Half-life 2 had a health bar, and guess what? It kicks games like Halo and CoD in the ass. Why was that? Because fighting was much more intense in Half-life 2. If you didn't watch it and ran out in the open to get a shot at enemies hiding behind cover, you would lose a chunk of your health that you're not going to get back so easy.

If Fallout had health that could be regenerated, I would not enjoy many of the battles I played as much as I do. Many fights would consist of me running up, filling my enemy with bullets, and then regenerate and move on. In Fallout I had to wait for the enemy to turn it's back, throw a grenade and then quickly fire of a couple of shoots to the head. Much more satisfying.

Also, you are supposed to be low on stimpaks a lot. That was one of the huge selling-points. You had to drink nuka-cola and dirty water to keep your health up at the expense of getting radiation-poisoning.

Wow, this was a lot of text I conjured up. I could shorten it down and say this: I think you have a slightly different playstyle from what fallout-players are supposed to have. You can enjoy the game, but I think there are some things you expected to be different. Different classes get different perks in games, it's always like that, nothing unfair about it, and the health bar goes hand in hand with the "play smart" theme.

I'm sorry if you find that I am being an asshole, I'm really not trying to be.

Next reply!

Final point: Snipers probably suck because you aren't focused on them. Since Fallout is an RPG, you have to focus a lot on what kind of weapon you want to use. In Halo for example, a sniper round to the face will kill you instantly, just like in real life. But in Fallout, where you choose what skills to have in what, the skills would be useless if the enemies died as easily as in Halo. Defeats the purpose of having to choose your skills, which you are supposed to in an RPG.

I guess it just bothers more when your enemies are able to take more than one or two bullets to the face when you have a heavy weight sniper-rifle, RPG or not. It just feels like a shooter so people get confused, including my good self.
Plus, the RPG-word in itself is used pretty damn loosely today. Being able to choose what do you say to NPC's when it doesn't affect later gameplay at all isn't RP'ing. Like in Fallout.

1. In an RPG-game, an items efficiency relies on your own skill with that item. So if you don't have the skills to wield a pistol, then the pistol will do less damage compared to if you indeed have a lot of skill with them. That's the name of the game, and if you don't like it, then play a game where you don't choose skills.
2. Firstly, Fallout is much more than just choosing what to say from an RPG-point of view, there are choosing skills, abilities, what kind of approach you will have in fighting (sniper,heavy etc.), there is questing, and you can change your characters facial-structure. All those are things that you have in an RPG. "RP'ing" as you call it, is when you create a character that you pretend to be. You're not controlling a character with an already established name, look, or personality, you choose it for yourself. You clearly have no idea what an RPG is.

I have no idea what you are saying when you claim that the RPG-word is used loosely today. I've never heard a game that isn't an RPG call itself an RPG. I've heard that games have RPG-elements, but that isn't overusing the word, that is the correct usage of it. I'm starting to think that your definition of RPG is JRPG's. And by that account, you know nothing of RPG's other than the fact that you choose what to say.

 

[spikeyjoey]

I haven't said it should be like regenerating in COD. I said a system like Far Cry 2, where you have 5 serperate bars -----, every time you get shot you lose a portion of a bar, if the full bar is gone you lose it, if you don't get hit for some time you will regenerate the bar. To recover lost bars you have to use a stimpack (in real time, not a menu!). This is a compromise between regenerating like COD, which is shit for RPG's, and F3, which sucks for shooters/action games.

Agreed, I did love the health system in farcry2..


saying that, i have no problems wtht the current system in Fallout3...


Ok, im going to be a bit blasphemous here, but i think the new fallout should have MORE VATS.

bear with me

so, refine the shooting dynamics slightly, make it more fluid, and give the guns a little more oomph (i mean the .36 pistol is a proper revolver, yet the damn things like a pea shooter).. im not neccesarily saying make the guns more powerful, but make them feel powerful... imagine the feeling you had when you first got a gun in half life or condemned...

so have the gane so it is enjoyable playable solely as a FPS, but i want VATS to be more VATAMS (targeting and movement)- you press it and everything pauses, but you have to spend action points to move aswell as shoot like in the first two... the map would go slightly grid like, but cover could be highlighted

Think about it, your gunning your way through an old building, until you come to a hall full of raiders.. check vats, highlight the desk, line up headshots on the 3 raiders.. confirm.. your char runs in, slams against the desk, pops out and fires off two quick shots, knocking 2 raiders off a gangway, befroe spinning round and taking out the 3rd with a headshot in one fluid motion..

it would be awesome.. so cinematic.. kindof like what john woos stranglehold and Wet were going for, but more stylish


I had thought maybe a mass effectee style system where you could control party members would be cool aswell, but youd probably spend too long in VATAMS mode then and it would take away some of the immersion...

it would, however, add some much needed strategy..

one of my biggest facepalm moments for fallout was watching my friends girlfriend play... she just charged straight towards a super mutant, firing off rifle shots.. no attempt at taking cover at all, despite being in that trenchy area.. every so often pausing and mashing "stimpack" until she was fully healed, before repeating the process..often just standing in the open letting herself get shot while she figured out where th bullets were coming from the fact the game allowed her to survive being an idiot is unforgivable i think..

I once managed to kill a super mutant wielding a mini gun with a 9mm pistol..

in the old fallouts when you saw a super mutant encounter you thought "oh shit".. which is how it should be

 

[Instant K4rma]

I think they should just add many more weapons and make the snipers not total crap. I mean look at any of the call of duty modern warfare and CS and any other FPS and take some gun ideas from them. Also, the snipers should be alot better, they were practically, if not totally, useless, and I for one like snipers, so I'd like for my use of them to not be completely pointless.

1. Sniper fanboy, you are not allowed to talk, the fallout 3 sniper rifles were awesome.
B. Have you seen the MW2 sniper rifle? since when does it take a .50 cal 3 shots to take down a man?
If it's going to take place near the original games i demand the highway man at least make a cameo appearance.

Haha, I agree with the .50 cal statement. Strong enough to blow away half a man's body, but once in multiplayer, takes sometimes up to 3 shots to kill someone.

 

[NathanAjax]

Considering Fallout is an RPG and not a full-blown FPS, I have no problems with the combat. And why do you complain about taking damage because it will waste your "valuable stimpaks", when later you say that you will have tons of them in the end? And who has heard of a game with guns where you don't get shot before you get near someone to melee them?

Because in the beginning you have very few.
And it isn't fair if one play style (sneaking, sniping, V.A.T.S.) has you keep more resources (stimpacks can be sold for money), that's why I think they should have an other health system (see my last post).

Isn't fair? Isn't fair? My good sir, there are different classes in RPG's for a different reason. When you pick sniper, you do so because you want to keep your distance and strategically kill your enemies without taking damage. When you pick assault-rifles or big guns, your going to go in there and get your hands dirty, but you must still be strategic. Mines, grenades, where to shoot the enemy, all these things are important.

Sniper is much easier to take on enemies from a distance, but when you are apprehended from behind by a Super Mutant, you're not going to be able to fight back. Small/big guns aren't great for long distance fighting, but get close enough for a surprise attack and shoot down the enemy before they shoot you, that's the way you play it.

There is a health bar because you are supposed to embrace the fact that you need to use strategy. Half-life 2 had a health bar, and guess what? It kicks games like Halo and CoD in the ass. Why was that? Because fighting was much more intense in Half-life 2. If you didn't watch it and ran out in the open to get a shot at enemies hiding behind cover, you would lose a chunk of your health that you're not going to get back so easy.

I'm not saying the combat isn't fair (although it is F3 weak point). I'm saying that if they balance their classes properly I can play any style I want and the result is the same (enemies dead, I'm alive). Thanks to the clunky shooting controls and shitty melee you are inclined to use V.A.T.S. or sneaking.

Oh and Half Life 2 isn't the best shooter ever. It was great, revolutionary for it's time and shooters today wouldn't be the same without it. But it has been surpassed since by the smoother controls and immersion of shooters today. Although nostalgia will tell you otherwise. I'm not saying Halo, since everybody thinks that if you don't think HL2 is the best game ever you're a Halo fanboy.


Oh and BTW, when has It's a RPG become the standard excuse for crappy combat in a RPG. Combat doesn't have to suck, just because you want to make a deep game. Bioware games have fun combat, why is it that in Bethesda games the combat is always an afterthought (see also Morrowind WORST COMBAT EVER)

 

[malestrithe]

The combat If you don't use VATS in F3 you're fucked. Because of the health bar (more on that further on) you have to kill people ASAP or it will cost you a valuable stimpack. But the shooting doesn't feel right IMHO. It lacks the smooth controls of a COD or Halo. The melee doesn't work great either, you get shot before you can get near enough, so after each fight you'll have to heal. They should make the bullets have more impact too. In F3 the enemies will soak up the bullets and suddenly fall. They should also improve the sniper rifles since they were very weak.

Ok, valuable stimpacks? By the time I completed the main quest of the core game, I had 400 of the things that I never used because most of the time it was faster to fast travel to a location that had a free bed to use, like that abandoned shack where you picked up the Victory Rifle.

 

[NathanAjax]

The combat If you don't use VATS in F3 you're fucked. Because of the health bar (more on that further on) you have to kill people ASAP or it will cost you a valuable stimpack. But the shooting doesn't feel right IMHO. It lacks the smooth controls of a COD or Halo. The melee doesn't work great either, you get shot before you can get near enough, so after each fight you'll have to heal. They should make the bullets have more impact too. In F3 the enemies will soak up the bullets and suddenly fall. They should also improve the sniper rifles since they were very weak.

Ok, valuable stimpacks? By the time I completed the main quest of the core game, I had 400 of the things that I never used because most of the time it was faster to fast travel to a location that had a free bed to use, like that abandoned shack where you picked up the Victory Rifle.

The first ten hours they are valuable. And I made exactly the same point about the game being over-easy thanks to the retarded amount you have at the end

 

[Cherry Cola]

Considering Fallout is an RPG and not a full-blown FPS, I have no problems with the combat. And why do you complain about taking damage because it will waste your "valuable stimpaks", when later you say that you will have tons of them in the end? And who has heard of a game with guns where you don't get shot before you get near someone to melee them?

Because in the beginning you have very few.
And it isn't fair if one play style (sneaking, sniping, V.A.T.S.) has you keep more resources (stimpacks can be sold for money), that's why I think they should have an other health system (see my last post).

Isn't fair? Isn't fair? My good sir, there are different classes in RPG's for a different reason. When you pick sniper, you do so because you want to keep your distance and strategically kill your enemies without taking damage. When you pick assault-rifles or big guns, your going to go in there and get your hands dirty, but you must still be strategic. Mines, grenades, where to shoot the enemy, all these things are important.

Sniper is much easier to take on enemies from a distance, but when you are apprehended from behind by a Super Mutant, you're not going to be able to fight back. Small/big guns aren't great for long distance fighting, but get close enough for a surprise attack and shoot down the enemy before they shoot you, that's the way you play it.

There is a health bar because you are supposed to embrace the fact that you need to use strategy. Half-life 2 had a health bar, and guess what? It kicks games like Halo and CoD in the ass. Why was that? Because fighting was much more intense in Half-life 2. If you didn't watch it and ran out in the open to get a shot at enemies hiding behind cover, you would lose a chunk of your health that you're not going to get back so easy.

I'm not saying the combat isn't fair (although it is F3 weak point). I'm saying that if they balance their classes properly I can play any style I want and the result is the same (enemies dead, I'm alive). Thanks to the clunky shooting controls and shitty melee you are inclined to use V.A.T.S. or sneaking.

Oh and Half Life 2 isn't the best shooter ever. It was great, revolutionary for it's time and shooters today wouldn't be the same without it. But it has been surpassed since by the smoother controls and immersion of shooters today. Although nostalgia will tell you otherwise. I'm not saying Halo, since everybody thinks that if you don't think HL2 is the best game ever you're a Halo fanboy.


Oh and BTW, when has It's a RPG become the standard excuse for crappy combat in a RPG. Combat doesn't have to suck, just because you want to make a deep game. Bioware games have fun combat, why is it that in Bethesda games the combat is always an afterthought (see also Morrowind WORST COMBAT EVER)

I liked the combat in Fallout. Didn't really have problems with it. VATS gave me satisfying kills, and the shooting worked pretty much like shooting should. And the melee wasn't really that different from other games I think.

Now, Half-Life 2 maybe isn't the best shooter ever in others opinions, but for me, nothing stands near it. And it's not nostalgia, because the first time I played that game was not even 6 months ago and I never played the first game. It lacked zoom on the weapons, but it felt much better than anything else I've played in FPS-ways.

Also, I don't think I said that the fact that it's an RPG excused it for shitty combat, and if I did then I didn't intend it. I said that since it was an RPG it made sense that a sniper wasn't as efficient on lower levels or for someone who hasn't picked the skills for using snipers, as it would be for someone focusing on sniper-usage, and that is what a skill-system is supposed to do: Make some things better than others if you focus on those things.

And yes, Morrowind had really crappy combat, but I don't think Fallout has crappy combat. And I don't think you can compare Bethesda to Bioware in this regard, because Fallout is an FPS-type of RPG while Bioware does third-person games that use point-and-click combat (extremely simplified explanation of the combat, I know)

 

[spikeyjoey]

i dont have much faith in this game as its not bethestda, and when game swap companies it tends to go down hill.

but i hope they make it more suvivaley. im a level 30, i have atleast 10,000 bullets for every gun (Apart from alien blaster) i have 214 stimpacks and i can get hit with a rocket launcher and lose like 2 blocks form my health bar

/facepalm..

it changed companies from fallout 2 to 3..

as was said, the new company, obsidion, has a lot of the staff who worked on the first 2

sorry


read my post dammit! its long but i think my ideas are good?

 

[paragon1]

I'm nervous about Obsidian making it. They screwed up to of my favorite IPs (Neverwinter Nights and KotOR). So unless the Obisidian making this one is very different from the one I've grown to hate, the New Vegas is going to suck.

I loved the original two Fallouts, even though I preferred FO3 to the both of them, but I'm hoping that they'll do a good job.

Sorry to double post, but I remembered one more thing. Why are we going back to this area? There are so many interesting places in the United States ALONE that could be used. I feel like that whole area and landscape has been done to death.

Vegas? How has it been done to death? You seem to miss the fact that 50's Vegas is very, very different to modern Vegas. Vegas in the fifties was the haven of gangsters and crooks, with only a few large casinos and hotels, plus once an area has been Falloutsed (bombed, made to look like the fifties, bombed again, then sprinkled with civilisation) it becomes an entirely different place altogether.

I was referring to the general area of the Arizona and Nevada deserts, which is where the first two took place. I seem to remember one of the settlements basically being Las Vegas, but perhaps I'm mistaken? I'm just saying that I'm tired of revisiting the nuked out desert wasteland.

Actually Fallout was set in Southern California while Fallout 2 was, roughly, set in Oregon. And you're thinking of New Reno perhaps? A Vegas'y like location, but definitely not on the same scale as the whole Vegas area.

Oh okay, so we're east of the Rockies instead of West? Well, I suppose that could be a little different. When is this set? Same time as F3 or is it after F1 and 2?

 

[Octorok]

Snippity Snip

Oh okay, so we're east of the Rockies instead of West? Well, I suppose that could be a little different. When is this set? Same time as F3 or is it after F1 and 2?

We've had no exact date yet, but the games are getting later and later. Fallout 3 is 2277 I believe, so think ahead of that.

 

[walls of cetepedes]

Make choices have impact Now you just have a tab that says if your evil or good. They did a better job in the DLC where your choice made all the water poisonous or healthy. Make people talk about what you've done, not just one radio presenter.

Like in the first 2, where almost everything you did affected something else, and making the wrong choice can turn an entire city against you?

 

[Sensenmann]

Another problem is that near the end of the game you'll have so many stimpacks that you'll be practically invincible. This isn't helped by the fact that you can pause and heal at any time.

That's an issue in all RPG games, sadly. It should be a mix of the two systems in my opinion. The character can regenerate half of the health, but instead of filling the other half with packs, there should be some necessary action/risk, preferably such as that in FarCry 2. But not the simple syrette stuff. The stopping and taking a few seconds to snap a leg back into place/take a bullet out of the arm kind of thing which forces the player to find some place safe.

I think that if they just used risk instead of attaining a pack, there would be no such issue, as the risk would increase as the game got more difficult (thus entirely getting rid of packs as we know them).

 

[Slayer_2]

The answer to your problems lies in the modding community. Seriously, there are mods for this kind of thing.

 

[Flying Pilgrim]

I really wished that the game was harder because I played the game on Very Hard and only found that enemies had more health and did more damage...yet again I did hotkey stimpacks so when I got shot I just pressed up on the d-pad and healed.

 

[Feralbreed]

/quote]1. In an RPG-game, an items efficiency relies on your own skill with that item. So if you don't have the skills to wield a pistol, then the pistol will do less damage compared to if you indeed have a lot of skill with them. That's the name of the game, and if you don't like it, then play a game where you don't choose skills.
2. Firstly, Fallout is much more than just choosing what to say from an RPG-point of view, there are choosing skills, abilities, what kind of approach you will have in fighting (sniper,heavy etc.), there is questing, and you can change your characters facial-structure. All those are things that you have in an RPG. "RP'ing" as you call it, is when you create a character that you pretend to be. You're not controlling a character with an already established name, look, or personality, you choose it for yourself. You clearly have no idea what an RPG is.

I have no idea what you are saying when you claim that the RPG-word is used loosely today. I've never heard a game that isn't an RPG call itself an RPG. I've heard that games have RPG-elements, but that isn't overusing the word, that is the correct usage of it. I'm starting to think that your definition of RPG is JRPG's. And by that account, you know nothing of RPG's other than the fact that you choose what to say.
[/quote]


Yeah, guess I kinda missed my point. Or didn't know to give a good example...

Well, you're right. And I remembered that there ARE qonsequences too. What about that time when the ghouls completely destroyed Tenpenny tower although I didn't want things to go that way...that was RolePlaying. An unpredictable series of events which lead to a certain result based partially on my actions.

And I didn't mean JRPG's...I hate those.I would never trade Fallout for a Final fantasy!