The terribly shitty melee combat of Fallout: New Vegas

[Lhynn]

Onholyservicebound did your brain just farted?

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Lhynn Eh, no, I was just the last one who posted.

I wrote if in case it wasn't, gawd.


Edit: I didn't even know that ignoring ignored quotes too...disregard everything I suck cocks.

 

[St. Toxic]

shittily shit shit you are shit shittonapieceofshit EAT MY TURDS YOU TURDEATING TURDMUNCHER!!

So, do you really suck cocks or should that be disregarded as well?

 

[hiver]

Is that some attempt at some kind of humor, or your brain fell out somewhere along the way again?

 

[Roguey]

No, it's an accurate interpretation of instant gratification crowd/mass market that the gaming industry as a whole has been catering to for the last decade or so.

I don't believe you. Prove it with well-researched unbiased sources.

Except with master in melee baton can be effective even against MIBs, also baton makes less noise than Dragon's Tooth and choosing non-lethal path in a game isn't larping, one of Deus Ex biggest strengths was multiple viable approaches in game.

After people stop commenting about, it makes no difference at all whether or not you knock someone out or kill them. The proper way to deal with MiBs in melee is to turn on the speed aug, run them through with the 'tooth like you're in a samurai film/anime, and let them explode harmlessly behind you.

No, I'm praising Fallout combat for being fast and lethal compared to boring, clunky slogfest that is FNV.

Another bizarre break from reality: claiming turn-based Fallout, where the average battle takes minutes, is faster than real-time New Vegas, where the average battle takes seconds.

Combat being fast and lethal fits the harsh post apocalyptic setting

Not Fallout 1 and 2 as they actually exist, games that can be completed with single-shot guns, burst guns, or unarmed/melee.

The end result of most modifications that favor the "bullets are fuckin' LETHAL, man!" goal is that bullets and explosives are, in fact, fuckin' lethal. Almost every combat becomes snap-shotting unaware/unprepared targets or sending packs of barely-awake enemies' limbs flying in a fountain of grenade shrapnel. I.e., almost everything favors scoring one or more hits on an enemy from any source as quickly as possible.

Distance, accuracy, rate of fire, and getting the drop on people dominate combat even more than they already do in F:NV. And if an enemy gets the drop on you? Bye. If you have enough time to realize what's happening, you may hobble away with two or three crippled limbs. If an enemy explosive is involved, forget it. You're dead meat. Melee and unarmed become pointless skills unless you're pairing them with stealth, in which case they dominate just as much as shooting people from stealth.

It's arguably much more realistic, but it seems to limit playstyles much more than liberating them.

That is not the Fallout experience or even a design goal they ever had in mind.

(of course that it should have been more challenging goes without question, see AoD for Fallout combat formula being done right).

Pffffffffffahahahahahahahahahahahaha

As I said there's a middle ground, it's not either/or, can't believe I have to spell that out for you.

Where is this middle ground? Sim-jerks can't even reach a consensus among themselves, ergo they're an unpleasable demographic and it's better to just ignore them and do whatever makes the game better to play.

 

[St. Toxic]

Is that some attempt at some kind of humor, or your brain fell out somewhere along the way again?

Eh, it's all in the eye of the beholder bro.

 

[hiver]

Ah, ok then. Ill leave you to your art.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I don't believe you. Prove it with well-researched unbiased sources.

I don't have Josh's quote on the subject at hand proof, sorry.

After people stop commenting about, it makes no difference at all whether or not you knock someone out or kill them.

It's my chosen playstyle. Thief not reacting to player ghosting missions at all didn't stop people from playing the game that way.

The proper way to deal with MiBs in melee is to turn on the speed aug, run them through with the 'tooth like you're in a samurai film/anime, and let them explode harmlessly behind you.

The proper way is to knock them out with a baton and then loot their stuff.

Another bizarre break from reality: claiming turn-based Fallout, where the average battle takes minutes, is faster than real-time New Vegas, where the average battle takes seconds.

Don't know what to say Roguey, I didn't use a stopwatch but playing all 3 games on hard difficulty combat felt more fluid, faster and lethal (both for me and my enemies) in first 2 Fallouts compare to FNV despite that I was frequently facing more enemies (especially in Fallout 2).

Pffffffffffahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Indeed, Age of Decadence greatly improved Fallout combat formula in terms of mechanics, depth and challenge level (which now fits a harsh post apocalyptic setting). I would elaborate on it further but I'm guessing you didn't play the game and would just pull a bunch of random quotes from players who didn't put effort into understanding game's mechanics and as a result concluded that the only way to get through the game is constant reloading to get a good roll.

Where is this middle ground? Sim-jerks can't even reach a consensus among themselves, ergo they're an unpleasable demographic and it's better to just ignore them and do whatever makes the game better to play.

Josh doesn't seem to think so (despite that lame-ass dying from a single bullet wound strawman) given that he dropped the use of intellect as a melee damaging attribute and recently bothered to come up with an in-game explanation for those arches (instead of ignoring it or saying it's just a game or something).

Besides, most people are somewhere in-between those two extremes (it's a dumb classification anyway, why should I have to choose between good gameplay and a well-designed setting/world?).

 

[Cadmus]

You missed the point. Standing there missing for 20 minutes was a bad way to present that kind of gameplay. They should have had your attacks bounce off the enemy armor or be blocked, not miss every single time over and over again.

Oh.. you are right, I didn't think of that. I think I just never had a problem with this kind of abstraction. Maybe missing better highlights the fact that you suck as opposite to the enemy being so much stronger.

 

[Roguey]

It's my chosen playstyle. Thief not reacting to player ghosting missions at all didn't stop people from playing the game that way.

The harder difficulties in Thief require you not to kill anyone or the mission fails, so no that's not LARPing.

The proper way is to knock them out with a baton and then loot their stuff.

Not all of them have stuff, and if they do, who cares? You can kill everything with your super-sword and anything else you need can be found in non-MiB containers.

Don't know what to say Roguey, I didn't use a stopwatch but playing all 3 games on hard difficulty combat felt more fluid, faster and lethal (both for me and my enemies) in first 2 Fallouts compare to FNV despite that I was frequently facing more enemies (especially in Fallout 2).

I don't think any of the games should be played on hard. Enemies can hit more often and do more damage? This is not a meaningful difficulty tweak. I take more damage and they take less? Also not an interesting tweak.

Assuming you're actually right (you're not) and Fallout 1/2 combat takes seconds, like it does in New Vegas: this would be an awful thing. Turn-based combat that's resolved in seconds is combat that might as well not exist because you're just going through a routine rather than thinking about things. Combat in chess is, to paraphrase Josh, fuckin' lethal yet chess matches are not over in seconds or even a few minutes depending on the skill of the players (it's called "fool's mate" for a reason).

Indeed, Age of Decadence greatly improved Fallout combat formula in terms of mechanics, depth and challenge level (which now fits a harsh post apocalyptic setting). I would elaborate on it further but I'm guessing you didn't play the game and would just pull a bunch of random quotes from players who didn't put effort into understanding game's mechanics and as a result concluded that the only way to get through the game is constant reloading to get a good roll.

I completed the combat demo and gave the first proper demo an honest try. It's pretty much the opposite of what Josh would do, thus it's awful. Sound tactics that can fail because of the RNG = worthless game. Hammering the same attack over and over again and succeeding because of the RNG? Also worthless. This is just scratching the surface too.

It's also weird how you praise Fallout 1/2 for their speed and then claim AoD improves on its formula even though it takes significantly more time to resolve.

Josh doesn't seem to think so (despite that lame-ass dying from a single bullet wound strawman) given that he dropped the use of intellect as a melee damaging attribute and recently bothered to come up with an in-game explanation for those arches (instead of ignoring it or saying it's just a game or something).

Neither of those things had anything to do with appeasing people who want quasi-sim game mechanics.

Besides, most people are somewhere in-between those two extremes (it's a dumb classification anyway, why should I have to choose between good gameplay and a well-designed setting/world?).

A setting/world has nothing to do with its gameplay mechanics.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

What build you play AoD with, Roguey?

 

[hiver]

A setting/world has nothing to do with its gameplay mechanics.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

The harder difficulties in Thief require you not to kill anyone or the mission fails, so no that's not LARPing.

You do know what ghosting means, right?

Hint: it's not what Dishonored and Deus Ex:HR consider it to be.

Not all of them have stuff, and if they do, who cares? You can kill everything with your super-sword and anything else you need can be found in non-MiB containers.

Because I like to play that way? Why ghost Thief when I can knock down everyone (abusing flash bombs for groups) and leisurely walk through the level like a tourist.

I don't think any of the games should be played on hard. Enemies can hit more often and do more damage? This is not a meaningful difficulty tweak. I take more damage and they take less? Also not an interesting tweak.

If there has to be a difficulty level (I'm against it in general) I'd prefer for it to increase enemy's lethality then to bloat them with HP.

Assuming you're actually right (you're not) and Fallout 1/2 combat takes seconds, like it does in New Vegas: this would be an awful thing. Turn-based combat that's resolved in seconds is combat that might as well not exist because you're just going through a routine rather than thinking about things. Combat in chess is, to paraphrase Josh, fuckin' lethal yet chess matches are not over in seconds or even a few minutes depending on the skill of the players (it's called "fool's mate" for a reason).

Oh yeah, forgot about that genius chess-video game analogy

Again, I'm more talking about combat being fluid (perhaps fast wasn't the right word to use) and lethal than the actual time it takes to resolve. To illustrate it better, compare BG2 "boss" encounters with Dragon Age's HP sponges, High Dragon battle with Firkraag (who has like 200 HP).

I completed the combat demo and gave the first proper demo an honest try. It's pretty much the opposite of what Josh would do, thus it's awful FUN.

I know, haven't had this much fun with a game since Arcanum.

Not to worry though, I'm also looking forward to sleepwalking through PoE combat encounters with a party of special snowflakes while enjoying the story and beautiful scenery (and also on the plus side, Adam Brenneckes of the world will be able to finish the game too! Uncle Josh leaves no player behind).

Sound tactics that can fail because of the RNG = worthless game. Hammering the same attack over and over again and succeeding because of the RNG? Also worthless. This is just scratching the surface too.

No, no, if you build a character specialized for combat (a philosopher/talker has no business getting into fight with a bunch of rough men that kill for a living) and put some effort into understanding system and options/tactics available even with game's randomness factor (which again plays well into the setting as you never feel completely comfortable getting into combat which is as it should be) you'll be able to beat almost every battle in the whole game 8/9 out of 10 times (I should know given that I ironmaned the game with two different combat builds).

It's also weird how you praise Fallout 1/2 for their speed and then claim AoD improves on its formula even though it takes significantly more time to resolve.

You really do take everything literally, don't you? I'm fine with combat being prolonged by me having to adjust my tactics (switch to a different weapon for a heavily armored enemy, use nets, bolas, poison and similar), positioning (not let the enemy surround me) etc. not due to enemies being harmless, non-threatening HP sponges and me using a pea shooter.

Neither of those things had anything to do with appeasing people who want quasi-sim game mechanics.

Oh but they do, especially regarding pussing out on keeping intellect as the damage attribute. It was hilarious to see to what degree Obsidan forum's story loving casuals have an effect on Josh.

A setting/world has nothing to do with its gameplay mechanics.

No, in a good game everything is connected and fits well as a whole (greater than the sum of its parts).

 

[Karellen]

Assuming you're actually right (you're not) and Fallout 1/2 combat takes seconds, like it does in New Vegas: this would be an awful thing. Turn-based combat that's resolved in seconds is combat that might as well not exist because you're just going through a routine rather than thinking about things. Combat in chess is, to paraphrase Josh, fuckin' lethal yet chess matches are not over in seconds or even a few minutes depending on the skill of the players (it's called "fool's mate" for a reason).

A setting/world has nothing to do with its gameplay mechanics.

I don't think you're really in touch with what the Fallout experience is intended to be, Roguey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you look at RPG design like they're perfect knowledge games. Which is fair, especially in this FAQ-ridden age, but the fact of the matter is that Fallout isn't designed with that in mind at all. Combat in Fallout, when looked at in isolation, is a rather banal and simplistic affair with little in the way of actual tactics, but when you look at it in the context of the actual game, it does a much better job in getting the harshness and dark humour of the setting across than fights in New Vegas do. Now that's all it's good for, admittedly, but it's a major component in making Fallout the beloved game it is.

Fallout's simulationist roots show in its lack of consideration for game balance, and as a result the combat is easy and fairly banal once you know where everything is and what to do - but before that, when you're just trying to learn the ropes and scrounge up some gear for your character, the game is pretty damn exciting, because new discoveries can increase your survivability by leaps and bounds, rather than according to some carefully thought-out character progression chart. On the other hand, when played with no prior knowledge, it's very easy to get into fights where you are hopelessly outmatched if you're not careful. That's mostly true of the early game, but even at the end, a combat approach to the Cathedral or the Military Base without Power Armor is pretty damn painful. It's the sense of hopelessness at the beginning, the gradual learning process and the slowly building sense of mastery over the gameworld that makes makes the game satisfying, and the way fights play out in the game is a big part in that. So I'm not saying the combat is great, because it isn't, but it serves its purpose well in the game, and certainly does things that New Vegas does not.

 

[hiver]

Yes, basically. But that roquey your talking to.

 

[Roguey]

What build you play AoD with, Roguey?

Sanity Assassin.

You do know what ghosting means, right?

Hint: it's not what Dishonored and Deus Ex:HR consider it to be.

A LARPing self-imposed challenge. "Challenge" in quotes when it comes to Deus Ex.

Because I like to play that way? Why ghost Thief when I can knock down everyone (abusing flash bombs for groups) and leisurely walk through the level like a tourist.

Yes, why would you? I wouldn't, unless the mission fails if you knock out someone. There are a couple of missions in Thief 2 that enforce that. Otherwise, it's a whole lot of work for nothing. You're not accomplishing anything, waste of time and effort.

If there has to be a difficulty level (I'm against it in general) I'd prefer for it to increase enemy's lethality then to bloat them with HP.

Good thing New Vegas has a difficulty modifier that does neither.

Again, I'm more talking about combat being fluid (perhaps fast wasn't the right word to use) and lethal than the actual time it takes to resolve.

I have no idea what you mean by fluid. You come across as "I like turn-based games because they are turn-based. I don't like real-time games because they are real-time, unless they gimp themselves by becoming turn-based wannabes."

To illustrate it better, compare BG2 "boss" encounters with Dragon Age's HP sponges, High Dragon battle with Firkraag (who has like 200 HP).

HP is just a number. I've seen videos where it takes people a few minutes to around 15 to kill both those dragons. What particularly separates Firkraag from the other dragon are the spells he uses that need hard counters. Hard counters = shit.

I know, haven't had this much fun with a game since Arcanum.

There's a winning endorsement.

Not to worry though, I'm also looking forward to sleepwalking through PoE combat encounters with a party of special snowflakes while enjoying the story and beautiful scenery (and also on the plus side, Adam Brenneckes of the world will be able to finish the game too! Uncle Josh leaves no player behind).

I'm going to be delighted when Josh Sawyer virtually smashes your preconceptions into bits.

No, no, if you build a character specialized for combat (a philosopher/talker has no business getting into fight with a bunch of rough men that kill for a living) and put some effort into understanding system and options/tactics available even with game's randomness factor (which again plays well into the setting as you never feel completely comfortable getting into combat which is as it should be) you'll be able to beat almost every battle in the whole game 8/9 out of 10 times (I should know given that I ironmaned the game with two different combat builds).

Ironman it with those two builds ten times.

You really do take everything literally, don't you? I'm fine with combat being prolonged by me having to adjust my tactics (switch to a different weapon for a heavily armored enemy, use nets, bolas, poison and similar), positioning (not let the enemy surround me) etc. not due to enemies being harmless, non-threatening HP sponges and me using a pea shooter.

Look at all this backpedaling. "Fallout combat is faster, except when it's not."

Deathclaws and cazadores aren't harmless.

Oh but they do, especially regarding pussing out on keeping intellect as the damage attribute. It was hilarious to see to what degree Obsidan forum's story loving casuals have an effect on Josh.

The Obsidian forum largely didn't have an issue with intellect. And since I have to spell it out for you, his concern was intuitiveness, not simulating reality. He didn't sacrifice anything by moving those values around. If he was appeasing quasi-simulationists there'd be different stats governing melee, ranged, and magic damage, not unlike that Might and Magic X trash.

No, in a good game everything is connected and fits well as a whole (greater than the sum of its parts).

This way lies smudboy and his autistic inability to accept combat that's resolved in turns because there's no in-game lore explanation for it.

There are all kinds of good games that take place in similar or even the same setting with very different mechanics.

I don't think you're really in touch with what the Fallout experience is intended to be, Roguey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you look at RPG design like they're perfect knowledge games. Which is fair, especially in this FAQ-ridden age, but the fact of the matter is that Fallout isn't designed with that in mind at all.

I'm reverse-engineering their intent based on what actually exists and what they changed in Fallout 2.

You don't need "perfect knowledge" to break Fallout. Me, I looked at the manual, saw the sniper perk required 8 agi and 8 per, and 80% small guns. And better criticals required 6 luck. Gifted gives you a whole seven extra points of stats you can't regularly upgrade at the expense of skills you can upgrade every level. Done, started game, noticed when fighting the first rat that with just two more AP I could fire twice per turn instead of once. Quickly restarted and gave myself 10 agi. The winning of Fallout began.

Fallout is terribly balanced because it's a system put together in weeks by a bunch of jerks who had little idea what they were doing, not because they were trying their hardest to simulate reality. The power fist was specifically added because late-game unarmed builds were struggling with combat. The slayer perk upgrades all your unarmed hits to criticals, not just ones that meet a luck roll. The existence of that perk proves that it was their intention that someone could complete Fallout from start to finish by hitting things to death. If they were trying to simulate reality, they wouldn't include perks that encourage you to bring your fists to a gun-fight. And no, these mechanics have nothing to do with a post-apocalyptic retro-future.

 

[Lhynn]

Im starting to think Roguey doesnt have fun playing games.

 

[Athelas]

Fallout is terribly balanced because it's a system put together in weeks by a bunch of jerks

 

[ZagorTeNej]

A LARPing self-imposed challenge. "Challenge" in quotes when it comes to Deus Ex.

You call it larping, I call it a viable playstyle.

Yes, why would you? I wouldn't, unless the mission fails if you knock out someone. There are a couple of missions in Thief 2 that enforce that. Otherwise, it's a whole lot of work for nothing. You're not accomplishing anything, waste of time and effort.

Yet many Thief fans consider ghosting to be the best way to play those games, how come Roguey?

Good thing New Vegas has a difficulty modifier that does neither.

I wouldn't know, I only played it on hard.

I have no idea what you mean by fluid. You come across as "I like turn-based games because they are turn-based. I don't like real-time games because they are real-time, unless they gimp themselves by becoming turn-based wannabes.

Let me put this simple (since you take everything literally), I like to be able to kill things fast and to be in danger of getting killed fast from enemies, I don't like facing walking HP sponges that represent no threat to me.

HP is just a number. I've seen videos where it takes people a few minutes to around 15 to kill both those dragons. What particularly separates Firkraag from the other dragon are the spells he uses that need hard counters. Hard counters = shit.

It's a number that illustrate the difference in type of challenge Dragon/Boss encounters offer in Dragon Age (HP bloat) and BG2 (tactical challenge).

I'm going to be delighted when Josh Sawyer virtually smashes your preconceptions into bits.

That would make two of us, in this instance I would be very glad to be proven wrong.

Ironman it with those two builds ten times.

That would mean the game is too easy (even so, I reckon I could do it 6-7 out of 10 times with a certain build), however me being able to do that (an ironman run) at all shows that your (and others like-minded players) RNG rules supreme in AoD theory is false.

Look at all this backpedaling. "Fallout combat is faster, except when it's not."

Deathclaws and cazadores aren't harmless.

I never reached Deathclaws (though I remember seeing some video of a player punching one to death with a boxing glove), cazadores however I had no problem whatsoever, I just shot off their wings in VATS with Lucky or with That gun (Blade Runner inspired gun from original Fallouts)

The Obsidian forum largely didn't have an issue with intellect.

Right, keep telling yourself that.

This way lies smudboy and his autistic inability to accept combat that's resolved in turns because there's no in-game lore explanation for it.

Smudboy's view is extreme but that's how it is with you, it's either black or white, there's Josh's way and there's the wrong way (even though the guy contradicts himself and/or changes his mind on occasion).

 

[Roguey]

Yet many Thief fans consider ghosting to be the best way to play those games, how come Roguey?

They're dumb and enjoy self-flagellation? They're Thief-fans after all.

Let me put this simple (since you take everything literally), I like to be able to kill things fast and to be in danger of getting killed fast from enemies, I don't like facing walking HP sponges that represent no threat to me.

This is possible in New Vegas by keeping your skills and weapons up-to-date, using JSawyer, and/or setting your endurance to 1. An endurance of 1 in base NV is equivalent to 6-7 with JSawyer.

It's a number that illustrate the difference in type of challenge Dragon/Boss encounters offer in Dragon Age (HP bloat) and BG2 (tactical challenge).

Hard counters are anti-tactical. They're post-reload metagaming.

That would mean the game is too easy (even so, I reckon I could do it 6-7 out of 10 times with a certain build), however me being able to do that (an ironman run) at all shows that your (and others like-minded players) RNG rules supreme in AoD theory is false.

It could also mean the RNG just happened to work in your favor during those runs.

I never reached Deathclaws (though I remember seeing some video of a player punching one to death with a boxing glove), cazadores however I had no problem whatsoever, I just shot off their wings in VATS with Lucky or with That gun (Blade Runner inspired gun from original Fallouts)

Sounds like you ran into small, scattered groups of cazadores meant to discourage low-level players and not the larger clusters. You never saw deathclaws so of course you did.

Also boxing gloves do a large amount of fatigue damage, resulting in a knockout, they don't kill enemies.

Smudboy's view is extreme but that's how it is with you, it's either black or white, there's Josh's way and there's the wrong way (even though the guy contradicts himself and/or changes his mind on occasion).

Josh has never contradicted himself nor does he ever change his mind when it comes to high-level goals. He only changes flawed executions of his vision.

 

[Karellen]

I don't think you're really in touch with what the Fallout experience is intended to be, Roguey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you look at RPG design like they're perfect knowledge games. Which is fair, especially in this FAQ-ridden age, but the fact of the matter is that Fallout isn't designed with that in mind at all.

I'm reverse-engineering their intent based on what actually exists and what they changed in Fallout 2.

Nice, but why do that when you could go and read what the developers actually wanted to do? Here, let me copy a few pertinent bits:

Rule #1: Multiple Decisions. We will always allow for multiple solutions to any obstacle.

Rule #2: No Useless Skills. The skills we allow you to take will have meaning in the game.

I wanted the game to seem brutally real. The player should feel that the world is out to get them. There is no safety and you can’t trust anyone. Any false step could be your last.

You don't need "perfect knowledge" to break Fallout. Me, I looked at the manual, saw the sniper perk required 8 agi and 8 per, and 80% small guns. And better criticals required 6 luck. Gifted gives you a whole seven extra points of stats you can't regularly upgrade at the expense of skills you can upgrade every level. Done, started game, noticed when fighting the first rat that with just two more AP I could fire twice per turn instead of once. Quickly restarted and gave myself 10 agi. The winning of Fallout began.

Yeah, I did the same in Fallout. But, Roguey, there's nothing particularly game-breaking about a well-crafted character, because the effectiveness of a Fallout character is primarily dependent on the gear you have - maxing AGI and tagging Small Guns make fighting trash mobs less tedious, but their impact on survivability isn't that critical. You run the risk of getting killed in Fallout when you travel off the beaten path and run into a nasty random encounter, get yourself in over your head with powerful, avoidable optional foes or aggro a lot of enemies at once with a bad dialogue option, and the issue with those situations is not your damage output but your lack of adequate defence. Your character remains fairly vulnerable all the way until you get the Hardened Power Armor, which people might very well never even get during a blind playthrough. All this makes combat, for most of the game, a pretty risky business and something that's often best avoided.

Fallout is terribly balanced because it's a system put together in weeks by a bunch of jerks who had little idea what they were doing, not because they were trying their hardest to simulate reality. The power fist was specifically added because late-game unarmed builds were struggling with combat. The slayer perk upgrades all your unarmed hits to criticals, not just ones that meet a luck roll. The existence of that perk proves that it was their intention that someone could complete Fallout from start to finish by hitting things to death. If they were trying to simulate reality, they wouldn't include perks that encourage you to bring your fists to a gun-fight. And no, these mechanics have nothing to do with a post-apocalyptic retro-future.

I find it amusing that you're bringing up Slayer as though it mattered, because to this day I've never gotten enough XP in the first Fallout to get anywhere near the level where you could get it. But, yes, you can use a Power Fist, which makes you... what, a puny, squishy human at point-blank range from the Super Mutant with the machine gun? It's inconvenient until you get the Power Armor, after which you're so awesome that you can basically do whatever you want, which is precisely the point of Power Armor. I don't really see any major issues with verisimilitude here.

Setting that aside, though, I don't think the developers were trying to "simulate reality" in the sense of portraying a realistic world, since Fallout isn't a strictly realistic setting in the first place. What they did want to create a system that expresses and simulates the basic ideas of the survivalist post-apocalyptic genre that Fallout belongs to. For instance, that you are a squishy human; that messing with the wrong people will get you slaughtered; that it's often better to talk your way out of trouble; and that when you do have to shoot somebody, it's a good idea to be the one who shoots first. It's true that Fallout's system is basically a hackjob, and much of its design was rushed. The way I see it, though, that makes it even more impressive that the feel of the setting comes across so well in the gameplay.

 

[Shadowfang]

The slayer perk upgrades all your unarmed hits to criticals, not just ones that meet a luck roll.

Yes the slayer perk is really powerful but you get it at what levels 18 in F1 and 24 at F2, meaning that at those levels you are already so strong that the benefits of that perk aren't really relevant and also you have to grind as hell to get to those levels. If i remember correctly i finished F1 with lvl 8-12 and F2 with level 17. Slayer is just a reward for the amount of grinding the player had to do to reach those levels.

And whats the deal with this Josh Sawyer? Is he a writer? If not who cares about what he says. Obsidian games usually have nothing going for them other than the writing.
If its not for the plot, why would you play an obsidian game?
Where can i see the work of this great Sawyer you speak off? Is it that mod that he did for FNV, the one that "fixes" a game he worked on?

 

[Declinator]

Yet many Thief fans consider ghosting to be the best way to play those games, how come Roguey?

They're dumb and enjoy self-flagellation? They're Thief-fans after all.

True, it is a self-imposed challenge to ghost in Thief. I don't see a huge difference between that and the game itself giving me the rules before the mission though of course it would be preferable to have an additional difficulty setting. Nevertheless, if they were rules set by the game the only difference in gameplay would be that the mission would fail if I failed to ghost.

While there are some similarities to the Oblivion-style larping, this kind of self-imposed challenge has nothing to do with make-believe and/or immersion. I'm not thinking "I can't knock out that guard because someone would know I've been here" or something like that but instead I'm doing it because I noticed that most levels were simply not that fun if you knock the guards out and after trying out ghosting found it to be the more enjoyable style though I don't ghost in the puristic way some hardcore players do (e.g. first-level alert is considered a failure.)

Also, while the rules say nothing about ghosting, it is supported by the mechanics themselves. Not knocking out a guard vs knocking a guard out results in significantly different situations as the conscious guards force you to play differently. Compare this to something that could be considered larping like closing the doors behind you or returning keys to where you got them which has no effect on anything.

If ghosting maximizes my pleasure I don't see why I wouldn't ghost whether the game's ruleset explicitly demands it or not.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

What particularly separates Firkraag from the other dragon are the spells he uses that need hard counters. Hard counters = shit.

Nah.

The High dragon in DA:O is tactically bottlenecked. If the player lacks both a tank that can manage threat and a healer (or two) to patch up whoever is unfortunate enough to be caught in dozens of chomping animations, the party is going to be wiped. The big lizard can dish out enormous amounts of damage, enough to one-shot any "squishy" character on Nightmare difficulty. Dragon-sis had enough hit-point reserves that "racing" it in damage output seemed practically impossible; even dropping a Storm of the Century on it wasn't going to suffice. And she seemed to shrug off any real debilitations, save for a few of Morrigan's hexes. Maybe if you had three or so mages all with maxed out Hex skills one could cycle the most powerful two to make the dragon miss practically every attack (while bypassing the long cooldown of that one skill)...but that seems pretty impractical

Basically, there's only one real way to take down the High Dragon, with HP bloat (and arbitrary immunities) eliminating potential tactical options.

Contrast with Firkraag (or any other SoA dragon), which are a lot more tactically open. They aren't HP-bloated, so it's possible to beat them in the damage race with a well-formed party. Debilitations are also incredibly effective against draconic critters, especially fear, blindness, and enfeeblement. The player isn't railroaded in terms of tactics.

And I know Sawyer is extremely butthurt about "hard counters" or whatnot, but I'm almost certain that none of the magicks employed by the SoA dragons require them. The only defensive spell they use (in unmodded BG2) is Stoneskin, which a competent warrior will plow through in about a round and a half. Most of their spells are debilitations, dispels, and healing magic. The most common spells the scaly things hurl are Remove Magic (to counteract player buffs) and Death Spell (to keep from being swarmed by player summons). Sometimes they'll cast a Lower Resistance so that player characters aren't 100% immune to the dragon's breath weapon and the associated element.

Not seeing any need for "hard counters" there.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Sanity Assassin, Roguey, what stats, skills and which game version?