4356 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

...doesn't mean I have to like it, I suppose.

 

I don't like it either. I want my FO2.5, damn it. I'm just saying that Bestheda doesn't value this opinion and, if anything, is actively hostile to it. Much like they are hostile to all of the other RPG-like features that made FO great. PC VO is the first step they've taken to creating something that approaches an RPG, because it may well force them to introduce some actual reactivity and constraints into their game world (though I note that even FO3 was better at that than Oblivion and similar to Skyrim, apart from the guilds). 

[ObserverStatus]

I thought this was cute.

 

[Sully13]

[Dermain]

...doesn't mean I have to like it, I suppose.

 

But...but...ANDROID PC!!!!

[Akrabra]

Still, pretty interested in the game. I just have serious misgivings about their move to a cinematic protagonist and action combat mechanics. This is starting to sound like Dragon Age 2.

Well Bethesda has been making action-rpg's since Daggerfall or atleast Morrowind. It is no surprise that they enforce it on the Fallout series aswell. I personally prefer Fallout as an fps/rpg, because they are so rare and i really enjoy that type of game. Let it be known that i played FO3 before the rest of the series. And cheer up, atleast this game won't be low quality in production compared to DA:2

[Jaison1986]

I don't like it either. I want my FO2.5, damn it. I'm just saying that Bestheda doesn't value this opinion and, if anything, is actively hostile to it. Much like they are hostile to all of the other RPG-like features that made FO great. PC VO is the first step they've taken to creating something that approaches an RPG, because it may well force them to introduce some actual reactivity and constraints into their game world (though I note that even FO3 was better at that than Oblivion and similar to Skyrim, apart from the guilds). 

 

I remember FO having one of the crappiest combat styles I had ever seen. I missed every damn attack. I never finished the game out of frustration. So making this game a modern shooter is an welcome change for me. I would dare say they could have taken an step further and added an cover mechanic, ala Killzone.

 

I personally prefer voiced protagonists. Silent protagonists are souless in my opinion and make the experience feel too impersonal. It's like the NPCs are talking to themselves sinse the MC never actually says anything. Not to mention it helps to make the story more cinematic, wich I like.

[Dermain]

I remember FO having one of the crappiest combat styles I had ever seen. I missed every damn attack. I never finished the game out of frustration. So making this game a modern shooter is an welcome change for me. I would dare say they could have taken an step further and added an cover mechanic, ala Killzone.

 

I personally prefer voiced protagonists. Silent protagonists are souless in my opinion and make the experience feel too impersonal. It's like the NPCs are talking to themselves sinse the MC never actually says anything. Not to mention it helps to make the story more cinematic, wich I like.

 

They do say something but it's only through text and it's never what I actually want them to say.

 

So we get screwed either way really.

[Akrabra]

I personally prefer voiced protagonists. Silent protagonists are souless in my opinion and make the experience feel too impersonal. It's like the NPCs are talking to themselves sinse the MC never actually says anything. Not to mention it helps to make the story more cinematic, wich I like.

Well atleast it works better in a 1 person view, so you don't have to look at the dumb face your character is making while others are talking. Expressionless faces in RPG's are priceless. Dragon Age Origins, sigh. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Well Bethesda has been making action-rpg's since Daggerfall or atleast Morrowind. It is no surprise that they enforce it on the Fallout series aswell. I personally prefer Fallout as an fps/rpg, because they are so rare and i really enjoy that type of game. Let it be known that i played FO3 before the rest of the series. And cheer up, atleast this game won't be low quality in production compared to DA:2

Yeah, TES has always been an action game series, but Fallout has not. FO3 was too action-game for me with watered down RPG elements, while FO:NV felt like a perfect adaptation. Of a Out game into the Creation Engine/Bethesda format. I suppose I was just hoping for a continuation of that model, rather than a sequel to FO3.

[Jaison1986]

Yeah, TES has always been an action game series, but Fallout has not. FO3 was too action-game for me with watered down RPG elements, while FO:NV felt like a perfect adaptation. Of a Out game into the Creation Engine/Bethesda format. I suppose I was just hoping for a continuation of that model, rather than a sequel to FO3.

 

How is New Vegas better when it's even more of an shooter with iron sights and everything?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Because Bethesda fundamentally misunderstands almost every facet of the Fallout setting and Obsidian (obviously) doesn't. From lore, to quest design, to world design. Top to bottom, Bethesda has no clue what makes the Fallout setting tick and although Obsidian kept (and improved) the FPS action gameplay of Fallout 3, their understanding of the setting permeates just about every aspect of the game's design.

(I am going to make this a thing, just you watch.)

[Fast Jimmy]

How is New Vegas better when it's even more of an shooter with iron sights and everything?

It captures the setting and feel of previous FO games better.

It handles choice and consequence better than FO3 and in a way that is more in line with the rest of the series.

It incorporates skills and SPECIAL into dialogue (much) more often than FO3.

It allows for a wider variety of personalities, factions, alliances and overall ability to play a more nuanced character.

VATS having a slower recharge rate made the game more difficult, but it didn't require the player to use the new iron sights (in fact, it was still a very poor shooter in that regard).



Long story short, they pretty much they nailed the RP part of the RPG. And the action combat could be avoided or circumvented with VATS still. I think it was tied with FO2 as the best game in the series.

[Barbarossa2010]

Fallout New Vegas was superb in every way but its bugginess. Easily my favorite game. While actively feeding my small arms addiction (thanks Josh Sawyer) with more gun varieties, ammunition reloading, iron sights, handloaded ammo, weapon mods, and craftables, it also allowed for infinitely more role playing possibilities, and had an wonderfully engaging story in the MQ and DLCs (thanks Chris Avellone).

I'm just one of those weirdo's that likes twitchy gun play, but can opt out into VATS when I want; and prefers a blank-slate, silent PC and (ironically) more usage of non-combat skills and skill checks.

I too was hoping for a continuation of that with the next iteration. Now that I've seen skills are giving ways to perks, I'm actually a little sad.

Having said that, I still think FO4 will be a great game, if nothing else, in scale alone. I'm fairly certain there will be more surprises than let downs...for me personally.

[Cyonan]

Even ignoring not getting the feel of the previous Fallout games, New Vegas is still both a better RPG and a better FPS than Fallout 3 is.

 

One thing I never really understood was why guns reload so much faster in VATS. It can feel like you're gimping yourself by not exploiting VATS reloads, especially on guns that take ages to reload otherwise.

 

Also while it was much better in New Vegas, it'd be great if a weapon's bullet spread wasn't attached to stats/skills in any way. I hate having to manually aim my gun on top of the game getting to roll the dice to see if I missed anyway.

[Akrabra]

http://imgur.com/a/Y4Tga

 

A list of all weapons and modifications shown in the E3 footage  

[Fast Jimmy]

Even ignoring not getting the feel of the previous Fallout games, New Vegas is still both a better RPG and a better FPS than Fallout 3 is.

One thing I never really understood was why guns reload so much faster in VATS. It can feel like you're gimping yourself by not exploiting VATS reloads, especially on guns that take ages to reload otherwise.

Also while it was much better in New Vegas, it'd be great if a weapon's bullet spread wasn't attached to stats/skills in any way. I hate having to manually aim my gun on top of the game getting to roll the dice to see if I missed anyway.

Why spend any points in skills/Perks/SPECIAL then? I can aim a gun with the best of them... ,but maybe my character can't. Similarly, I may have terrible hand eye coordination or reflexes, but should prevent me from role playing a master sniper?

Roleplaying is not just limited to dialogue decisions. It is the complete package... And a player's skill (or lack thereof) should not be a backdoor or a roadblock to playing that character in an RPG.

[Cyonan]

Why spend any points in skills/Perks/SPECIAL then? I can aim a gun with the best of them... ,but maybe my character can't. Similarly, I may have terrible hand eye coordination or reflexes, but should prevent me from role playing a master sniper?

Roleplaying is not just limited to dialogue decisions. It is the complete package... And a player's skill (or lack thereof) should not be a backdoor or a roadblock to playing that character in an RPG.

 

The stats still increase the damage done with the weapon, and chance to hit in VATS if you are using it. There isn't a point to certain perks, but then those are the same perks I was already ignoring in New Vegas because I don't use VATS unless I feel like exploiting the reload thing.

 

I am talking purely about FPS mode here. The game isn't asking my character to aim, it's asking me to aim and then it turns around and says "Oh sorry, your gun skill was a bit low so your sniper rifle didn't actually shoot where it was aimed at".

 

I will note that some guns are expected to have natural spread. Nobody is expecting a minigun to be as accurate as an anti-materiel rifle, but if a gun is supposed to be pin point accurate then it should be pin point accurate when the game is asking me to manually aim it. There are other ways of making sniper rifle like weapons difficult to aim with at lower levels if you really want that to be in there.

 

The change wouldn't roadblock anybody from playing a master sniper if that's what they want to play. If you want to do that and have poor aim, then you should be using VATS.

 

The VATS system is fine as is. Weapon skill should affect your accuracy in that mode because the game is doing the aiming for you.

[Fast Jimmy]

The stats still increase the damage done with the weapon, and chance to hit in VATS if you are using it. There isn't a point to certain perks, but then those are the same perks I was already ignoring in New Vegas because I don't use VATS unless I feel like exploiting the reload thing.

I am talking purely about FPS mode here. The game isn't asking my character to aim, it's asking me to aim and then it turns around and says "Oh sorry, your gun skill was a bit low so your sniper rifle didn't actually shoot where it was aimed at".

I will note that some guns are expected to have natural spread. Nobody is expecting a minigun to be as accurate as an anti-materiel rifle, but if a gun is supposed to be pin point accurate then it should be pin point accurate when the game is asking me to manually aim it. There are other ways of making sniper rifle like weapons difficult to aim with at lower levels if you really want that to be in there.

The change wouldn't roadblock anybody from playing a master sniper if that's what they want to play. If you want to do that and have poor aim, then you should be using VATS.

The VATS system is fine as is. Weapon skill should affect your accuracy in that mode because the game is doing the aiming for you.

But you shouldn't be aiming the gun. Not in an RPG. You can select the target, select the weapon, even select the type of attack you are making... but your character is taking the action. Player skill shouldn't be a determined in the question.

I agree that making the player miss a shot the player would have made is frustrating... which why the game shouldn't give the player a choice in the matter. Either that, or go full action game FPS and leave stats out of the game completely. Games that try and do both have a terrible track record.

[Cyonan]

But you shouldn't be aiming the gun. Not in an RPG. You can select the target, select the weapon, even select the type of attack you are making... but your character is taking the action. Player skill shouldn't be a determined in the question.

I agree that making the player miss a shot the player would have made is frustrating... which why the game shouldn't give the player a choice in the matter. Either that, or go full action game FPS and leave stats out of the game completely. Games that try and do both have a terrible track record.

 

I think it can work to have a mix of FPS and RPG. The biggest problem is the developer not maintaining the balance between the two and shifting towards one or the other, which is usually FPS these days. Mass Effect 1 was a pretty solid start, but 2 went really heavy on the cover based shooting aspect. I even think New Vegas is really solid as far as having a mix goes.

 

Fallout also has a unique problem in that it did a genre change when Bethesda rebooted it. It used to be a pure RPG and it's now more of a FPS than anything. It doesn't really matter what genre of game you have, you're gonna ****** off a lot of your original fans if you do that to a series.

 

Though if they were to drop the FPS half, then they should just go back to full blown turn based combat. Of course unfortunately for the RPG fans, they're going in the other direction.

[SmilesJA]

Because Bethesda fundamentally misunderstands almost every facet of the Fallout setting and Obsidian (obviously) doesn't. From lore, to quest design, to world design. Top to bottom, Bethesda has no clue what makes the Fallout setting tick and although Obsidian kept (and improved) the FPS action gameplay of Fallout 3, their understanding of the setting permeates just about every aspect of the game's design.

(I am going to make this a thing, just you watch.)

 

Personally, I felt Bethesda understood the Fallout series and they did a good job of adding their own take to it.

[Jaison1986]

But you shouldn't be aiming the gun. Not in an RPG. You can select the target, select the weapon, even select the type of attack you are making... but your character is taking the action. Player skill shouldn't be a determined in the question.

I agree that making the player miss a shot the player would have made is frustrating... which why the game shouldn't give the player a choice in the matter. Either that, or go full action game FPS and leave stats out of the game completely. Games that try and do both have a terrible track record.

 

Now you're just talking crazy. It's an RPG, but this roleplaying game uses shooter based mechanics for it's action sequences. So you need to acept it's rules.

 

While I agree that at some level it's ridiculous how you miss a shot despite of carefully aiming it, but it's not too unrealistic, considering I actually tried shooting a gun in a range once and I missed most of my targets. Experience with weapon does matter when it comes to precise shooting.

[Cyonan]

Now you're just talking crazy. It's an RPG, but this roleplaying game uses shooter based mechanics for it's action sequences. So you need to acept it's rules.

 

While I agree that at some level it's ridiculous how you miss a shot despite of carefully aiming it, but it's not too unrealistic, considering I actually tried shooting a gun in a range once and I missed most of my targets. Experience with weapon does matter when it comes to precise shooting.

 

To be fair, what I'm talking about is carefully aiming, being on target, and then missing anyway because the rifle fired 2 meters to the left.

 

The unskilled marksman simply isn't going to be on target. A rifle doesn't suddenly decide to fire off in no man's land just cause you aren't a special forces sniper =P

 

Normally you'd have this represented by sniper rifles having a lot of sway when trying to aim at low gun skill. Automatic weapons would have increased recoil. Even in the event that the player is good enough to ignore both of these things, the gun skill does still affect damage.

 

What makes it kind of weird is that the game is trying to be a FPS and a RPG at the same time. In the RPG sense my character might not be experienced with precision shooting. In the FPS sense, I am very experienced with precision shooting in gaming.

[Sully13]

I once while in a Snipeing position useing a SA-80 missed my target hit the floor had the round ricochet hit the roof then land 20 foot away hitting another target from behind.

Crackshot...

 

 

 

I was banned from HMS Ralieghs (Think that was the spelling.) shooting range for life.

[Fast Jimmy]

Now you're just talking crazy. It's an RPG, but this roleplaying game uses shooter based mechanics for it's action sequences. So you need to acept it's rules.

if a developer sees fit to change it rules with each release, then I don't need to accept anything, in my opinion. If you stick with a mechanic, I'll evaluate it accordingly. But if you hop scotch from one design swing to the next, I'll tell you what's wrong with your system and what I want you to do to fix it, since the developer is obviously not married to any particular concept except the most recent change in the wind shows up in the industry.

While I agree that at some level it's ridiculous how you miss a shot despite of carefully aiming it, but it's not too unrealistic, considering I actually tried shooting a gun in a range once and I missed most of my targets. Experience with weapon does matter when it comes to precise shooting.

I agree. If all we do is add damage to Attacks based on skill, then this might as well be COD MP, since that's exactly what it amounts to - XP gives you stat bonuses, but the end result is 100% reflex-based action mechanics gameplay. Which doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to let you design your own character, with skills, expertise and experience that may differ dramatically from the player's.

[Cyonan]

I agree. If all we do is add damage to Attacks based on skill, then this might as well be COD MP, since that's exactly what it amounts to - XP gives you stat bonuses, but the end result is 100% reflex-based action mechanics gameplay. Which doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to let you design your own character, with skills, expertise and experience that may differ dramatically from the player's.

 

Unfortunately the series since Fallout 3 now supports playing the game as a FPS. It's obvious that Bethesda isn't planning on going back on that idea, which means that the game gets to have some FPS mechanics in it.

 

It's honestly not even much of a change from New Vegas, as it primarily affects just the highly accurate rifles. Automatic weapons get increased spread, but you generally aren't trying to do long ranged precision shooting with them and missing 1 bullet from an assault rifle isn't as big as missing one from an AMR.

 

You can still have gun skill affect recoil and gun sway while aiming down the sights. That's an acceptable way of having gun skill affect your accuracy without taking it completely out of your hands as a player.

 

Of course if you watch the E3 video closely the pip-boy menu has no option to view your skills, and the description for INT now reads that it increases XP gain with no mention of skill points. Based on that, I'm not going to be surprised if skills as we know them are just gone from the game in Fallout 4.