Why do so many people here think First Person excludes RPG?

Fallout 3 fails as both as Action and as RPG.

I completed the game those days, and holy shit, combat gets ultra-boring in the end. Raven Rock and the battle in the endgame can't even compare to Navarro and the Oil Rig. Those clows aren't the Enclave I knew.

Raven Rock is a small base with dozen Enclave soldiers that came in duos. That's it. And no one of them poses a threat. The final battle in Take It Back is a battle where Liberty Primes does all the work for you. That's it. There's no EPIC BATTLE. I thought a army of Enclave soldiers would attack us, but damn, it was just a bunch of hapless Enclavers being smashed and flashy stuff being displayed. No resistance. No epic battle. The ending is pure anti-climax.

For a Action RPG, this is weaker than Fallout 2, where taking on the Oil Rig or Navarro are both epic battles, even with a high-level sniper character and a squad of NPCs in Power Armor and the best guns money can buy. Taking on Navarro and the Oil Rig was pretty damn hard, and if two soldiers decided to concentrate fire on a single person, that person was going to die. Including YOU. If you wanted to go combat on both, you had better be a epic-badass. Or they would give you a legendary asskicking. THIS is how they rolled in The Enclave I knew!
 
Dead Guy said:
I like tactics a lot more than 3.
There's at least some consequences to the few choices you get to make.
The plot is better, even though you can't roleplay it.
It actually introduced a new faction, if not two.
It didn't recycle the plot from previous games.
The combat isn't a walk in the park throughout the entire game.
The Browning M2.

Playing tactics is a bit like playing PnP with a bunch of people that are only interested in the combat part and make charachters with only combat skills and 2-handed swords. But I still enjoyed it more than 3.

I think it's great how you say what you just did and then still argue on about how great fallout 3 is. What makes you think there's something you can say that will convince others that it's not a fucking abomination, if they happen to think that?
Click to expand...

First of all I don't know where you get the "argue on about how great fallout 3 is" bit from. I DON'T think Fallout 3 is great. I think it's average at best. I do defend it here sometimes because I don't think its as bad as Tactics and FO:BOS were, but its not "great" by any means.

Also I'm not here to try and convince others it's not a fucking abomination if they think that, I don't WANT to do that. Let people think whatever the hell they want to think, its cool with me as long as it remains a forum discussion and doesn't get personal. I'm here to talk about Fallout games, including Fallout 3. Because its Fallout, and its my favourite series.
 
When it comes only to combat I think Fallout 3 is inferior to Tactics. But thats of course more cause I am a bit biased toward a top-down gameplay with such games. Frankly the Tournbased combat in Tactics was neither that great in my eyes, but thats cause the game was done for both real time and turn based in favour for the first one. So far Jagged Alliance 2 has in my opinion the best Tourn Based mechanics that I would definetly have apeciated to see in Fallout 3 (improved with better AI and more options of course, my dream would be of course a game with Demigods graphic, excelent AI and a turn based mechanic like Jagged Alliance 2 *drolls*) ... but oh well.

A "first person" look does sure not exclude role playing. But only if the parts that actualy make role playing are strong. There are certain games with first person that are RPGs obviously.

There is just no reason why Fallout ever should have followed them in those direction. It was designed as tourn based top-down iso-like game [I dont know if it was exactly ISO] on purpose. Not cause of some obscure engine limitations.
 
Slaughter Manslaught said:
I completed the game those days, and holy shit, combat gets ultra-boring in the end. Raven Rock and the battle in the endgame can't even compare to Navarro and the Oil Rig. Those clows aren't the Enclave I knew.

Raven Rock is a small base with dozen Enclave soldiers that came in duos. That's it. And no one of them poses a threat. The final battle in Take It Back is a battle where Liberty Primes does all the work for you. That's it. There's no EPIC BATTLE. I thought a army of Enclave soldiers would attack us, but damn, it was just a bunch of hapless Enclavers being smashed and flashy stuff being displayed. No resistance. No epic battle. The ending is pure anti-climax.

For a Action RPG, this is weaker than Fallout 2, where taking on the Oil Rig or Navarro are both epic battles, even with a high-level sniper character and a squad of NPCs in Power Armor and the best guns money can buy. Taking on Navarro and the Oil Rig was pretty damn hard, and if two soldiers decided to concentrate fire on a single person, that person was going to die. Including YOU. If you wanted to go combat on both, you had better be a epic-badass. Or they would give you a legendary asskicking. THIS is how they rolled in The Enclave I knew!
Click to expand...

Here here!

In the official FO3 Strategy Guide, it is stated that by the end of the game the average character will be around level 15 to 17.
*phbtttt*
If you did anything other than race through the main quest, you'll max out before you finish half of the side quests, or even explore a tenth of the total map. In my first game, I was maxed out by Little Lamplight, and I hadn't even done the 2nd chapter of Moira's dumb busy-quests.

I love Morrowind to no end. I actually own three copies of the GoTY edition, so I know I'll never lose them to time.

But I also love Fallout. And quite honestly, with teams like the one working on Tamriel Rebuilt, FO3 feels like something the Oblivion modding community alone could have created, and done twice as well as BethSoft.

And is it burning anyone else to no end that there are three expansions being released, and they're charging 10 bucks apiece for content that (at least in the case of the higher level cap and non-terminal game ending) should have been included in the original release. 30 dollars! For stuff that quite frankly, I paid for with my original 50.

And of course, they're releasing it over LIVE, presumably to make sure ppl don't distribute them freely, like thay ought to do.

F*ing BethSoft.
 
Will PC users actually have to pay for it? For all their other DLC it was only console users that had to pay. FUCK them if they are making PC users pay.
 
Yazman said:
Will PC users actually have to pay for it? For all their other DLC it was only console users that had to pay. FUCK them if they are making PC users pay.
Click to expand...
Its released trough LIVE from what I know. So yeah ... the PC user will have to pay as much as the console user.
 
Games for Windows is basically Live for PCs which run Vista. Everyone's forced to have it. For, y'know, registration and adware and malware and what have ya.... So, yea, they're gonna charge for it. That's been out there for months.
 
dingohunternigel said:
Slaughter Manslaught said:
I completed the game those days, and holy shit, combat gets ultra-boring in the end. Raven Rock and the battle in the endgame can't even compare to Navarro and the Oil Rig. Those clows aren't the Enclave I knew.

Raven Rock is a small base with dozen Enclave soldiers that came in duos. That's it. And no one of them poses a threat. The final battle in Take It Back is a battle where Liberty Primes does all the work for you. That's it. There's no EPIC BATTLE. I thought a army of Enclave soldiers would attack us, but damn, it was just a bunch of hapless Enclavers being smashed and flashy stuff being displayed. No resistance. No epic battle. The ending is pure anti-climax.

For a Action RPG, this is weaker than Fallout 2, where taking on the Oil Rig or Navarro are both epic battles, even with a high-level sniper character and a squad of NPCs in Power Armor and the best guns money can buy. Taking on Navarro and the Oil Rig was pretty damn hard, and if two soldiers decided to concentrate fire on a single person, that person was going to die. Including YOU. If you wanted to go combat on both, you had better be a epic-badass. Or they would give you a legendary asskicking. THIS is how they rolled in The Enclave I knew!
Click to expand...

Here here!

In the official FO3 Strategy Guide, it is stated that by the end of the game the average character will be around level 15 to 17.
*phbtttt*
If you did anything other than race through the main quest, you'll max out before you finish half of the side quests, or even explore a tenth of the total map. In my first game, I was maxed out by Little Lamplight, and I hadn't even done the 2nd chapter of Moira's dumb busy-quests.

I love Morrowind to no end. I actually own three copies of the GoTY edition, so I know I'll never lose them to time.

But I also love Fallout. And quite honestly, with teams like the one working on Tamriel Rebuilt, FO3 feels like something the Oblivion modding community alone could have created, and done twice as well as BethSoft.

And is it burning anyone else to no end that there are three expansions being released, and they're charging 10 bucks apiece for content that (at least in the case of the higher level cap and non-terminal game ending) should have been included in the original release. 30 dollars! For stuff that quite frankly, I paid for with my original 50.

And of course, they're releasing it over LIVE, presumably to make sure {It's "people". You can write legibly. Don't bother crying about it.} don't distribute them freely, like thay ought to do.

F*ing BethSoft.
Click to expand...

I reached Raven Rock at level 11 last time. I did some several side quests and stuff.
 
José Cruz said:
I reached Raven Rock at level 11 last time. I did some several side quests and stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you were playing like a pussy, if you play on Very Hard then you're guaranteed to reach level 20, and if you're not playing on Very Hard, then you must either be really bad at the game or you don't appreciate a challenge.

What is it boi? Gurl? U knau wat im seyin.
 
^ I dunno. I was playing on Normal and I was level 11 by the time I had to go to Jefferson Memorial. I only proceeded with the main quests and some side quests. If I didn't give the game up, I'd probably hit 20 before I even got CLOSE to the end.
 
The thing about Normal mode is that as long as you have above 1 point in Endurance you can effectively run past anything without worrying about losing massive amounts of health from their stray bullets.

In Very Hard mode you have to kill everything in your way or else they'll blow chunks out of your health from random shots.
Of course, it just means you have to actually bother with most enemies, they're still incredibly easy to beat and the game is still a breeze.
 
Just to throw in my 2 cents...

FP Perspective doesn't exclude role-playing, but allowing player skills to override character skills does.

For example:
If I begin a game playing as my mother (who would effectively begin with a "0" in everything except Outdoorsman (were it still here), Computer, and possibly speech ), it would make perfect sense that the first time I go to fire a gun it jam, backfire, or otherwise fail to fire.

And even if it did fire, it wouldn't hit anything, even were the target five feet away.

Why? Because it's my mom, who doesn't know what a "slide", "hammer", or "magazine" is. Chances are the safety WOULD be on.

That is REAL roleplaying, because the character's abilities are determining how the game is played.

And for people who say, "I want MY abilities in the game," YOUR abilites aren't in the game anyways. I'd love to see any of you hit a moving target with a Deagle at 100ft.

That's why point-and-click dynamics aren't AT ALL compatible with role-playing.

In a game like Halo, your shooting ability (i.e. your chance-to-hit) in PAC remain the same, if YOUR ability to direct the reticule never improve. Thus, it is somewhat based off of player ability.

So, personally, I do believe that FO3's FPP is inconsistent with being a self-proclaimed RPG. It makes no sense whatsoever that you can hit a target more easily in realtime than in VATS at the start of the game with a sniper rifle.

Heck, it makes no sense that VATS's range doesn't extend half as far as the sinper scope lets you shoot.
 
But that's not really an issue with FPP, that's an issue with RT; specifically, RT combat.

That's really the reason for TB to begin with: To divorce your character's skills from your personal skills. At least when it comes to pointing and attacking, reflexes and all that.
 
no, it's just as easy to have your gun misfire and do damage to you in FPP RT as in TB.
The point is that BethSoft knew that all the Halo whores would be sitting there complaining if their gun jammed because they didn't take the time to level-up.

What, you think just because it's RT the comp isn't fast enough to do a roll for each shot? or that it'd slow the game down? Not at all.

BethSoft just didn't want to actually have the character skills do anything. That's why even with a 100 in lockpicking, you're not assured to actually pick a very easy lock successfully. It's idiotic - what, because I'm not a skilled lockpick, I can't even stick a pin into the lock? Why not just make the minigame very difficult in those cases, so your skill at the minigame is what determines it, instead of making us waste points on lockpick and computer skills pointlessly.

I guess to sum it up, this is my argument.

either:
1) have no char skills for lockpick and comp, and actually make the minigames difficult.

-or-

2) just do a regular roll like in other games. Do it like in Morrowind for crying out loud!
 
I like how people claim that combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was somehow challenging. Yeah, I guess, if you were an idiot. The only danger was the random 5000 damage minigun hit amongst the plethora of 2-3 point hits.
 
Herr Mike said:
I like how people claim that combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was somehow challenging. Yeah, I guess, if you were an idiot. The only danger was the random 5000 damage minigun hit amongst the plethora of 2-3 point hits.
Click to expand...
Its definetly more chalanging then Fallout 3 were one can almos finish the game bare fisted with a character that has only 1 in Strength ... no one said Fallout 1/2s combat was totally hardcore. But it definetly was less forgiving in comparision with Fallout 3.
 
Herr Mike said:
I like how people claim that combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was somehow challenging. Yeah, I guess, if you were an idiot. The only danger was the random 5000 damage minigun hit amongst the plethora of 2-3 point hits.
Click to expand...
I think it was more about strategy and tactics more than anything but I only have experience with F1 demo so I can't comment further. The combat in F3 is most definitely NOT challenging with any of the stock settings for me. Only after I have it on very hard PLUS I had to add a VATS mod which takes all the cheating out of VATS where you receive a miniscule proportion of damage that F3 is now challenging. Also you might be happy to know that bethesda have no problems using the ole insane amount of damage card to make the game more "fun" presumably. You know mysterious stranger? Well I believe his magnum does something like 9000 damage.


Sonora Cruz has an ordinary looking pistol which for some strange reason does about 100 damage compared to typical 12-14 range. bethesda are such masters at the art of "elegant" solutions to game balance I must say. More damage & more health are the intricate tools often used by them to achieve such a complex game mechanic design. You know cause you wouldn't want to have mysterious savior come then STILL have the enemy standing. That would leave a foul taste of uncool in my mouth and breaking of the "cool" rule shall not stand in F3.
 
I love Fallout but goobers exclaiming it had some great tactical combat system are way off the mark. You could either stand still and shoot more, or shoot then move around a corner. But I don't care, that's not what it was about. Combat was still fun.

I'm no FPS guru, but Fallout 3 stands up against Half-Life 2 and Bioshock, when it comes to FPSing. If VATS makes it too easy, don't use it. I've been playing without it, I've died at about the same rate as the old games, probably more.

There are lots of ways to make the game harder without tweaking anything. Self-limit. Limit the amount of ammo you carry. (I hate that ammo is weightless about more than anything in the game). Limit yourself to 3 guns. No hitting the pipboy mid-battle for stimpacks.
 
So to make the game challenging you're supposed to limit yourself, rather than expect the developers to properly balance it?

Pfft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top