Fallout New Turds - the final veredict.

[circ]

Combat in F1+F2 wasn't exactly top tier either. In fact for a turn-based system it was pretty fucking shitty. Fallout was always a primeexample for Choices&Consequences + Story. And theres a lot more (and quality wise better) in it in F:NV than F3.

I'll take one order of placing your guys tactically and random shitty groupmates over exploding awesomes all over my face and killing everything in sight at level 1.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

Combat in F1+F2 wasn't exactly top tier either. In fact for a turn-based system it was pretty fucking shitty. Fallout was always a primeexample for Choices&Consequences + Story. And theres a lot more (and quality wise better) in it in F:NV than F3.

like limiting perks

This? Not a good thing. More options in an RPG system is almost always a good thing. If your perks makes the game too easy either buff the challenges or nerf the perks; don't reduce the amount of choice in your system. Gods no the simple Fallout-system has little enough choice to begin with (a small handful of skills). About the only thing Fallout 3 did right was giving you more perks.

If said options make other options COMPLETLY irrelevant... No its not a good thing. And you can't just always nerf/buff shit to get it right.

Furthermore, while more options ARE always welcome they still need time to be developed correctly. If you don't have said time in the end you are just going to shoot yourself in the foot. Arcanum is a good example of that.

 

[Grunker]

How does that relate to what I said? If perks are too powerful currently to be taken on each level-up, you can do a lot of things; reduce amount of perks (VERY bad in a system with as little choice as Fallouts), buff your challenges, or nerf the perks that are problematic.

I saw the opinion that perk on each level was bad voiced a lot around here during Fallout 3, and it's a retarded opinion. Less perks is essentially less complexity in a system which is already very, very shallow.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

And here I was thinking you might actually have a point. Oh well, my mistake.

He has a point. He's the most consistent person on this site. It really doesn't make much sense how much shit people give Bethesda, when NV is the EXACT SAME GAME with a better story. Mondblut values combat mechanics, specifically turn-based, so his criticism of the game is completely consistent and valid. If you value story, that's fine, but at least put in a disclaimer that the combat in NV is still shit, and disliking a game for that reason is justifiable.

Combat in F1+F2 wasn't exactly top tier either. In fact for a turn-based system it was pretty fucking shitty. Fallout was always a primeexample for Choices&Consequences + Story. And theres a lot more (and quality wise better) in it in F:NV than F3.

I'm pretty sure Mondblut isn't a huge fan of Fallout, either, so once again: Consistent. That being said, the combat in 1 and 2 were miles ahead of Bethesda/Obshitian. Don't get me wrong, I don't think NV was a horrible game, but the combat was the same awful shit that Bethesda churned out.

 

[Grunker]

^ Agree.

 

[torpid]

Voted "it was ok" because it was kind of a pain to finish. I was starting to get weird crashes, and a lot of the quests start to feel very samey -- it's maybe the one RPG where there are too many quests and too many skill checks, so much so that a number of them come across as filler. Still, there's a lot of good stuff, and the amount of skill checks and the intricacy of some of the better quests in terms of what you can do and who you side with are glorious, but that fucking engine. I also made the mistake of playing other games in between, so when you've almost gotten used to how it plays the contrast suddenly makes you go "hey this engine is paralytic shit."

Also, the "it was good" option has the line "Obsidian didn't disappoint," and considering that their prior game was Alpha Protololz choosing that option feels like saying "yeah after the awesomeness of AP Obsidian did it again!1!" Fuck nooo

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Combat in F1+F2 wasn't exactly top tier either. In fact for a turn-based system it was pretty fucking shitty. Fallout was always a primeexample for Choices&Consequences + Story. And theres a lot more (and quality wise better) in it in F:NV than F3.

I'll take one order of placing your guys tactically and random shitty groupmates over exploding awesomes all over my face and killing everything in sight at level 1.

"attack, move to pillar, end turn behind it" is as tactical as Gear of War, bro

 

[circ]

Shrug. Place other member in front of other guy for possible tanking. Run the fuck away. Use stimpaks, pop pills. Swap weapons. Reload. etc.

 

[Xor]

And here I was thinking you might actually have a point. Oh well, my mistake.

He has a point. He's the most consistent person on this site. It really doesn't make much sense how much shit people give Bethesda, when NV is the EXACT SAME GAME with a better story. Mondblut values combat mechanics, specifically turn-based, so his criticism of the game is completely consistent and valid. If you value story, that's fine, but at least put in a disclaimer that the combat in NV is still shit, and disliking a game for that reason is justifiable.

I suppose if all you value in a game is shooter combat, then you wouldn't like Fallout 3 or NV because the combat in both games sucks. But then why the fuck would you be playing RPGs in the first place? There are plenty of decent FPSes out there that do nothing but shooter combat.

When it comes down to it, NV and Fallout 3 have nearly identical stat systems and combat, but NV does so much better than Fallout 3 in every area that matters to me: quest design, writing, characters, area design, story, etc.

 

[Mastermind]

Shrug. Place other member in front of other guy for possible tanking. Run the fuck away. Use stimpaks, pop pills. Swap weapons. Reload. etc.

You can do all that in 3/NV as well.

 

[ChristofferC]

And here I was thinking you might actually have a point. Oh well, my mistake.

He has a point. He's the most consistent person on this site. It really doesn't make much sense how much shit people give Bethesda, when NV is the EXACT SAME GAME with a better story. Mondblut values combat mechanics, specifically turn-based, so his criticism of the game is completely consistent and valid. If you value story, that's fine, but at least put in a disclaimer that the combat in NV is still shit, and disliking a game for that reason is justifiable.

It's not just the story that's different. The whole world design makes so much more sense in F:NV.

 

[St. Toxic]

I have to admit to trying it just recently, and, unlike my experience with Fallout 3, the game didn't eject me with its stupid shit immediately and I was even able to enjoy some aspects of it unassisted by drugs or alcohol. But it's still shallow, mediocre and unimpressive and all the various small annoyances found throughout inevitably piled up on me and I lost interest.

I don't know if there's any point in making excuses in favor of Obsidian (it doesn't actually change anything) and in all honesty I never tried any "dlc" or anything like that, but after a brief glance through this thread I feel obligated to go with the Skyway option.

 

[Misterhamper]

And here I was thinking you might actually have a point. Oh well, my mistake.

He has a point. He's the most consistent person on this site. It really doesn't make much sense how much shit people give Bethesda, when NV is the EXACT SAME GAME with a better story. Mondblut values combat mechanics, specifically turn-based, so his criticism of the game is completely consistent and valid. If you value story, that's fine, but at least put in a disclaimer that the combat in NV is still shit, and disliking a game for that reason is justifiable.

It's not just the story that's different. The whole world design makes so much more sense in F:NV.

It does indeed make more sense... but really, exploring a neverending desert with an occational camp here and there simply isn't as fun as exploring a ruined city (even though that could still be made far better)

 

[Roguey]

How does that relate to what I said? If perks are too powerful currently to be taken on each level-up, you can do a lot of things; reduce amount of perks (VERY bad in a system with as little choice as Fallouts), buff your challenges, or nerf the perks that are problematic.

I saw the opinion that perk on each level was bad voiced a lot around here during Fallout 3, and it's a retarded opinion. Less perks is essentially less complexity in a system which is already very, very shallow.

More perks doesn't equal more complexity, it just means you get to pick more options that either overpower you (bad [see Fallout 3]) or barely have any discernible effect whatsoever (also bad [see Alpha Protocol]). I'd rather make fewer, more meaningful choices. Also "buff your challenges" in Bethbryo is pretty much just "give enemies more HP/DT" and that is it. It's no good for providing challenge.

 

[Grunker]

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that Fallout's system is shit. And when it comes to that, I'd rather have more choice.

 

[Banterrific]

How does that relate to what I said? If perks are too powerful currently to be taken on each level-up, you can do a lot of things; reduce amount of perks (VERY bad in a system with as little choice as Fallouts), buff your challenges, or nerf the perks that are problematic.

I saw the opinion that perk on each level was bad voiced a lot around here during Fallout 3, and it's a retarded opinion. Less perks is essentially less complexity in a system which is already very, very shallow.

More perks doesn't equal more complexity, it just means you get to pick more options that either overpower you (bad [see Fallout 3]) or barely have any discernible effect whatsoever (also bad [see Alpha Protocol]). I'd rather make fewer, more meaningful choices. Also "buff your challenges" in Bethbryo is pretty much just "give enemies more HP/DT" and that is it. It's no good for providing challenge.

Exactly, perking every level just devalues the perks - it's like saying that having less skill points ( say only enough to get 2 or 3 skills to 100) makes the game less complex than having enough to get 10 or 12 to 100

 

[Overweight Manatee]

There are problems with both. Getting perks every level = perks have to be small, weak, incremental improvements to your character. Problem is, that is what skills are supposed to be. Perks are supposed to be larger, significant changes. Getting perks every 2/3 levels = (in a combat heavy game) every perk you choose really needs to contribute directly to your combat viability, rendering otherwise "cool" but not directly useful perks useless. Heave Ho? Fortune Finder? Swift Learner? Who would waste 3 levels to get one of those?


Ideally the system would be changed to a point buy system. Say, 10 points per level. Heavy Ho and other weak things cost 10 points (heck, 5 points for some stuff like Here and Now would be fine and make sense), average perks cost 20, and a few overly useful perks like Comprehension and Educated could cost 25 or 30 perk points.

 

[Grunker]

GURPS was the intended system, and as I have stated previously a CRPG using GURPS would make me come. Like, literally, not just as a figure of speech.

 

[Excidium]

GURPS was the intended system, and as I have stated previously a CRPG using GURPS would make me come. Like, literally, not just as a figure of speech.

Not only you. I've had little contact with GURPS but from what I've read it is all manners of awesome.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Voted glorious for it is. Best RPG for me since Bloodlines. Even if the combat sucks donkey balls, that I hate the fact that the game tells you what skill check can open new dialogs, that the derp sometimes runs strong, it's still fucking great and I'm not even a storyfag. It's way way way better than Shitster 2 (even though I quite like The Witcher 1).

 

[devilkingx2]

why are the poll options

1. your a faggot

2. your a faggot

3. your a faggot

4. agree with me

5. agree with me

completely non-biased

i voted that it sucks because my shitty comp cant run it

 

[Xor]

Polls are serious business.