Interesting Quetions
First, I don't have any grand hopes or fears about Fallout 3 just yet. Having played through most of Oblivion, I didn't really hate it, but I didn't really love it either. It ended up being kind of generic and dull as it went along. What I missed most in Oblivion was the option for real choice and real development. Much like the second Deus Ex game, it offered the illusion of choice, but nothing you did really eventually affected the game world. the fact that the same developer is making Fallout 3 does not especially comfort me. But on to your questions . . .
Has anyone who enjoys first-person shooters ever found themselves wishing they could pause the game and let the computer take their headshots for them?
Most of your questions are straw-man arguments, but I'll humor them anyway. No. One of the great things about an FPS is pulling off a great headshot without the computer "doing it for you."
Conversely, has anyone who enjoys turn-based tactics ever longed for a first-person shooter mode between turns?
I have no idea how well the proposed hybrid system will work. Nobody knows, we're all just guessing. I am not filled with hope, but somebody, somewhere might just create a decent hybrid. I think the combat system in FO was (at least to some degree) a product of its time. Does Bethesda have a track record that says they have the chops to be the next great innovator? Nope.
When playing a hybrid FPS/RPG, such as Deus Ex or System Shock 2, does anyone find themselves wishing character skills were an alternative to their own rather than player and character skill complementing one another?
Frankly, if FO3 is as good as Deus Ex (the first one and not the second) or SS2, I will be thrilled beyond words. That dosn't mean it will really be what I hope FO3 could be, but it would be a fun game.
Is this really "innovation" when many games previously have featured similar mechanics of using a regenerating resource to slow gameplay and give the player an advantage?
It's not innovation. Do we want innovation? We want a good game, and innovate and fun are not synonymous.
Does anyone not believe that two distinct modes of play would be difficult to balance, leading to situations where one or the other is favourable to the point of being an exploit, a la Arcanum?
It would be difficult to balance. Not impossible, but difficult.
Alternatively, assuming the system is biased toward neither mode and perfectly balanced, does anyone relish the idea of lining up a perfect headshot only to be thwarted by random die rolls? Does this becomes much more of a concern in melee combat, where any miss within range is implausible and frustrates the player who fails despite adequate skill?
Random is still random. This is where things get a bit dicey for me. Most random number generators are fairly streaky. I could see a hybrid system where a point blank shot would always hit, but something like a critical chance would still be random.
Anyone find themselves wishing that utilitarian character generation was replaced by a lengthy tutorial mode and Fable style cuteness? Anyone think it's likely to be enjoyable more than once?
They're slapping their "story-based" mode on Fallout with regard to character generation. In previous Bethesda games it was only fun once. But I also bet you can blast through it and then just tweak the stats to your liking at the end. Or at the very least, save before the final tweak and then just reload and restart from there.
Have you ever wished that Fallout's colourful dialogue trees were replaced with a keyword system where you no longer evoke any kind of character, much less Fallout's classic archetypes?
Well, for me at least, the dialog trees were still pretty much a keyword system. I enjoyed the writing, but was never really at a loss for which response provoked the particular reaction I was looking for.
When playing Fallout, did you wish the game had less 1950's Americana influences? Less from cheesy Sci-Fi classics such as Them!? Less of the over-the-top comic book elements, such as the excessive death scenes, shining knights in power-armour, goofy looking mutants or stylish but impractical weaponry?
Frankly, I think this is the one area where they will probably get the most "right." These kinds of touches are all about background details, and for all their glaring faults, Bethesda does pay attention to details.
Did you find yourself longing for more generic elements? Rusted chunks of metal that would be at home in anything from Call of Duty to Flatout? Supermutants that wouldn't be out of place in High-Fantasy, Surival Horror or Sci-Fi? find yourself actively wishing that all game enemies were more like Resident Evil's Nemesis, Far Cry's Fatboy or Lord of the Rings' Uruk-Hai?
Postmodernism is all about taking bits and pieces from everywhere. Nothing (even FO) is really original in pop culture.
In short, ever wished Fallout looked less like Fallout and more like everything else?
Nope.
While playing Fallout, did anyone ever wish the player was given less authorship of their character? Ever wish you came with the baggage of your family and being a teenager?
It's their plot device. It does seem less drastic than the big crisis of a water chip, but seeking out a lost family member at least seems like a plausible way to start a story.
Are you happy to see both Super Mutants and the Brotherhood of Steel on the East coast, against all odds? Do you really want familiar faces at the cost of plausibility/continuity?
Having only played through FO1 and FO2, I'm not sure why this is "against all odds." But these elements are the iconic bits of the original story. I guess I would have to see this in action to determine if it felt plausible to me.
Does the moral choice of helping a stranger detonate a nuke in the middle of a town sound like one you'd agonise over? Does it sound any less cliched than any other "shady guy in the darkest corner of a bar room, waiting for some patsy in his evil scheme" plot arc?
It is a pretty obvious moral choice. But FO had obvious ones too. It would only be speculative to see if the more interesting moral objectives are a part of the new game.
Is a heavily armed ticket-collecting robot an example of wry humour, or more like those awesome moments in Police Academy when the timid Hooks suddenly snaps?
It's a bit of both.
