Ladies and gentlemen,
FALLOUT 3 !!!
I think I'm gonna faint. :dizzy2:
Printable View
Ladies and gentlemen,
FALLOUT 3 !!!
I think I'm gonna faint. :dizzy2:
Sweet, a game genre where you can get a trait in shoveling manure!
That guy does not know how to throw a football.
I was once a gravedigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Here's hoping Bethesda doesn't butcher it like they did TES.
Hit your Jets, grasp your Miniguns, gear up your Power Armors, stack up your RadAways, and most important of all, don't forget your protective eye wear, 'cause sunlight can penetrate through your eyes after so many years down in the vault !
https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3882/okularyfs5.jpg
READY ?
https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/...ading06ab5.jpg
Yeah they are bunch of buggy-coders, but assuming you referred to The Elder Scrolls with that "TES", I can be sure that it won't turn out something less than "good".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
Fallout for Dummies (as best as an intro could be by 1998)
Fallout 2: Advanced Courses
God, I'm coming home.
Don't get too exited, this isn't going to be a classical isometric Fallout game.
All i hope for is they retain the fallout style from previous games, i really couldn't care less what genre the game will be so long its fallout.
The style will definitely be there. I have several friends who work at Bethesda and they have assured me many times that they're doing justice to the franchise. I would be sceptical if that came from corporate press releases, but these are my friends and I believe them. They have a pretty hardcore NDA, so I have no info whatsoever about most of the actual execution of the thing, but from everything they have told me, we'll at least feel like we're in the Fallout universe. I specifically demanded that my friends make sure that the 'porn star' feature of Fallout 2 be included, and the response was "This time, we're earning the M rating."
One positive side to Bethesda working on Fallout 3 is that they have been committed to making their games mod-friendly for a very long time. Hopefully what they produce will open the doors for a whole Fallout mod community, something I would definitely love.
I personally wish that Fallout had been remade on the Infinity Engine. These days it's all 3D, and most of the top-down view 3D engines haven't been much to my liking. The idea of first-person Fallout makes me cringe initially, but it's workable enough that I'll give it a chance before complaining, if that turns out to be the path that Bethesda takes.
I'm personally disappointed with Bethesda working on Fallout 3 since that means that they will spend less time working on any potential expansions for Oblivion or TES V.
Thing is, if Fallout 3 follows the same corporate principals as Oblivion is founded on, things will get crappy real quick. Oblivion is a sore replacement for Morrowind.
Nah, I incline to opposite point of view: Bethesda needs to move further away from Morrowind, in some of the directions Oblivion took, for them to pull off a Fallout 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
What the Fallouts had in abundance was character - they had a great atmosphere (which granted Morrowind does too), but also had excellent sidequests, powerful slow burning central story arcs and some memorable characters.
Morrowind has no memorable characters (the only one I remember is Caius somebody, who is only memorable because he was half naked and naff). The sidequests were uninvolving, by the numbers affairs. The central story arc is optional, desultory and easy to miss.
Oblivion still has not shown evidence of an ability to create interesting or memorable NPCs, but made some progress with the spoken dialogue. The sidequests were a distinct step up from Morrowind's IMO and there was some atempt at making a compelling main story arc (everything up to and including Kvatch was a blast).
I guess the bottomline for me is that Bethesda really needs to hire some writers or game designers who understand dialogue and story telling.
The spoken dialogue in Oblivion is a joke. Three voice actors a believable world do not make. Pretty graphics a deep game do not make.
I haven't played either Fallout :embarassed: Heard so much good about them, and been tempted many times over. I'm always put off by the age: I am unsure if they will work properly on my computer. I admit that I'm also unsure I'll like them ... I loved Planescape: Torment and can like dark provided it is done well and not there for the sake of being 'adult', but there's a lot about the Fallout setting I don't tend to like. The post nuclear setting, for a start.
Ok, here's an idea Amazon have the Fallout collection (fallout, fallout 2, fallout tactics) for £4.98. It's a 1-2 week wait. I'll place an order for one. I'd appreciate it if people would warn me if they aren't likely to work on a modern PC, or if those who know my gaming tastes think I'm not going to like them. In that case I'll be able to cancel the order with nothing lost.
My tattoo of the Torment icon started to itch, and I found the source (really, no tattoos, but if I were to ever get one ...:thinking2: ). I'm not too thrilled about the setting either, seems too Cold War to me. Been there done that.
I'll have to read the reviews on this one though.
Do the Fallout games have similar value to those that are absolutely worth going retro for, like, say, Baldur's Gate(I, II) and PS:T? I never played them and is quite curious of the series' reputation.
For me, PS:T is wicked awesome in the gripping story plot...and the eerie sense of detachment from your average elf-and-dwarf settings of these RPG's despite sharing the same universe: the same reason I prefer Morrowind's strange blue peoples over Oblivion's knights and demons.
Mind you, I sort of cheat my way through them because the AD&D rules and Infinity gaming style -- mages at least, how annoying -- and me aren't exactly comrades, but the gripping story/good RPG is totally worth it. I suspect I'll be doing the same with Fallout, if I ever get it.
I trust Bethesda on this one. Except one problem: I heard rumors that they won't do any non-spoken dialogue in their RPGs anymore, not sure if it's true or not. If true, that's one crappy policy; very limiting to a big, immersive game world full of history and life that they strive for.
I play those games on a modern computer - I've not found a problem. There was an issue about FO2 having the kids taken out, breaking some quests(there was a panic about being able to shoot kids - not that you ever have a reason to do so in the game). There's a user made patch to put them back in. I think I've had to download and use that.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
The games have aged very well IMO - I find the graphics and gameplay etc perfectly acceptable.
I suspect you'll like it. The closest comparator for me is the BG series. It is the same basic idea: create a massive gameworld, populate it with interesting sidequests, have a slow burning epic main plot. Obviously, the setting's different: it is darker in tone, perhaps similar to PST in that respect. I found it more compelling and immersive than BG. The character creation system (SPECIAL) is perhaps the best of any role-playing game I've played. The combat is less tactical - and much less frequent - than BG but provides such a visceral pleasure when it occurs that it left me wanting more.Quote:
...or if those who know my gaming tastes think I'm not going to like them.
Don't do that - best fiver you could spend on a gaming, IMO.Quote:
In that case I'll be able to cancel the order with nothing lost.
Be sure to play FO first, then FO2. FOT is a whole other thing - a squad level tactical combat game. It's ok, but Jagged Aliiance 2 does the same thing much better and above all, it always hurts that it is not FO3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Why does the guy on the right look like Hitler?
There is a lot wrong with Oblivion, mostly a lack of personality, but it does more right then it does wrong. Compared to Morrowind and Daggerfall it sure is an improvement, it's just not very compellingQuote:
Originally Posted by Lehesu
Frankly I don't see why so many people have it in for Oblivion. I understand why the voice acting is irritating, but really its still a massive leap in the right direction. Hopefully fallout 3 will be take all of the best innovations of TES and then improve the bits that didn't work so well. I've never played any of the previous fallout games, but this has got me very interested.
One of my friends at Bethesda is annoyed with the voice-acting requirement as well, but apparently it's mandated by the publisher. From now on, all dialog must be voiced in all games, so I would expect the same in Fallout 3. He said that in Oblivion, they tried to expand the lore that was lost by doing this by increasing the number of in-game books. Perhaps something similar will be done for Fallout.
<Cue intro video>
Maaaaayyyyyyybeeeeeeee you'll think of me
When you are aall aloooooone...
:thumbsup:
Well so long as games allow you to read subtitles in addition to the spoken dialogue I have no problem with it. The idea that a fully fleshed out 3D world has to grind to a halt just so you can read a slew of text in a window puts a serious damper on a game's immersiveness. I thought Morrowind was terrible in that regard and I'm so glad they changed things for Oblivion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Thief
Bioware's Mass Effect looks to put a brand new spin on dialogue trees, you can actually participate in the middle of a conversation between two npcs. They even allow players to participate in cutscenes so they keep the flow of interaction going. That's much better than the usual fare where you butt in and chat npcs up or have to sit through a non-interactive cutscene. I can't wait for the eventual port to PCs.
I think most rpg fans that had it out for Oblivion were very frustrated with the fps style gameplay. Hardcore RPGers and FPSers are two entirely different beasts. It's one thing to require you to engage a monster letting your skills and stats do the work while you sit back and watch (unless you're a caster), another thing entirely to expect you to engage in half fast melee combat that consists entirely of silly swings, thrusts and blocks, none of which look or feel particularly 'real'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Thief
Personally I could take either Blizzard's approach to combat in WoW or Bioware's approach in KOTOR.
In WoW all that is required of the player is placement, leaving you free to pick and choose which attacks or spells; basically you're alleviated of the minutae of melee combat and are free to pursue your favorite tactics. It's not completely static but even with melee characters running around like mad casters can still kick ass. Critics of this gameplay design prefer to call it 'button mashing' but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
KOTOR's system might work really well for FO3 and keep hardcore rpg'ers happy while entertaining the fps or console crowd; realtime fps movement up until the point where combat is initiated and then a turn based system takes over.
What goes around in Fallout forums is that Fallout fans (I can count myself one) want voice-acting rather than reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Above this, I'd never buy a Fallout without Ron Perlman's intro speech.
War...War never changes.
Man, nothing can be more spectacular. That's a masterpiece.
As much as it seems this thread is turning off topic, I just can't help associating my favorite game with Satchmo, after all it was how I had met my "grandpa".
A Kiss To Build A Dream On from Stockholm 1962. Music can't be any better. It couldn't be any better choice for such a game as Fallout.
I shall let the order stand. Thanks :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Another one smells the dust. :balloon2:Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
But did that change between Morrowind and Oblivion? I thought that series had always been a bit "action" oriented, so that the player's manual dexterity mattered unlike the Kotor/NWN type game where it was just the character's stats. I think the particular dislike expressed for Oblivion comes from disaffected Morrowind fans who have a number of grievances, notably the scaling of monsters and loot to your level. (I disagree with them on that, but then I was never a Morrowind fan).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
I am definitely an RPG fan and am pretty useless at FPS games, but I thought Oblivion pulled off the combat really well. To me, it does look and feel 'real'. It is less hectic and feels more authentic than the comparable combat in Morrowind and, dare I say it, Mount and Blade. (Mount & Blade does some things very well - the archery and the riding - but suffers when you melee more than one enemy at a time and their frenzied attacks mean you are almost inevitably overpowered, being constantly knocked back.)
Disclaimer: I came to the TES series with Morrowind, after it had been through a few patches.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Personally, I saw a pretty significant shift in gameplay from Morrowind to Oblivion. Stats/traits/whatever meant far less in Oblivion than Morrowind, and the game felt much, much more shallow, repetitive, and meaningless. There were a number of things that killed Oblivion for me, almost too numerous to mention. Some of them are the monster/loot scaling which I abhor, lack of immersion/story/branching dialogues, lack of mutually exclusive quests/missions, the complete voice acting that was terribly implemented and extremely game limiting, "Radiant AI" which was decidedly obnoxious and unimpressive, extremely repetitive scenery and landscapes, utterly nerfed magicka, silly influence games, horribly broken stock interface (thank god for mods), etc etc etc...
Honestly I went through a phase where I liked it from the start, slowly got displeased with it, then went to hating it, now I can accept and play it again. Why? Because I realized it's not an RPG, or even a so-called "action RPG". It's a FPS with swords and magic. Bethesda in their arrogance repeatedly tried to market it as a real modern cRPG, "pushing the boundaries of role-playing", soil erosion etc, and all that nonsense and hype. They utterly failed at making a real cRPG, but they did make a fun FPS if you look at it that way. For those who say it is an RPG, I can make any dumb shooter and slap a few stats on it, a bad story and call it an RPG, but at the end of the day it's not. The term "RPG" is one of those that's been sorely abused and misused over the past few years by the gaming industry.
I partially agree with this and disagree. Agree in that I did honestly like the combat system for the most part from Morrowind. There is SOME element to play skill and "twitch" gaming. The problem I have with it is that it really does remove the whole RPG aspect from the equation, and stats literally mean almost nothing. A low level player with horribly crappy equipment and extremely low skills/attribs can waste a pretty high level NPC with great gear and much higher stats, just because they are good at twitch style gaming. I went through the whole Arena at level 3 hardly breaking a sweat against the NPCs who were level scaled higher than me (ugh) with much better weapons. In Morrowind stats meant much much more, and you could get into deep poop real quick if you tackled something too hard off the bat. In Oblivion I never once had to worry about it, because I am pretty durn good at twitch style gaming, and because of how the system works I could kill stuff at will, and escape easily if I got in over my head. Morrowind I couldn't do that at all until much higher clvls, but then again one should be a god at later points in the game.Quote:
I am definitely an RPG fan and am pretty useless at FPS games, but I thought Oblivion pulled off the combat really well. To me, it does look and feel 'real'. It is less hectic and feels more authentic than the comparable combat in Morrowind and, dare I say it, Mount and Blade. (Mount & Blade does some things very well - the archery and the riding - but suffers when you melee more than one enemy at a time and their frenzied attacks mean you are almost inevitably overpowered, being constantly knocked back.)
Cheers
:balloon2:
Note - these are my personal opinions only.
Hmmm... I shall remain heavily skeptical about FO3 for the time being, given the new developer and the Fallout universe. I am not one of those "NMA freaks", but I do wholeheartedly agree with a number of their boilerplate statements. Fallout 1 and 2 are/were two of the best cRPGs we've ever had. Tactics was ok, I enjoyed it. I never played BoS but from what I've read and seen, I doubt I'd like it.
- cRPG. Fallout represents the very best of turn based computer RPGs. I do NOT want real time combat, it MUST be turn-based.
- SPECIAL. Morrowind/Oblivion style stats and skill increasing will absolutely not do here whatsoever.
- I do NOT want "Oblivion with guns". I do not want first person perspective at all. Don't really want behind locked 3rd person camera at all either. Isometric isn't required, in fact I could do away with this, as long as it's some kind of top down/non fixed camera. This ties in with turn-based.
- Branching dialogues/mutually exclusive decisions,quests/consequences. Sure there were kids in FO1/2, and you could certainly kill them if you wanted to be a sadistic bastard, BUT you had to accept the consequences. Your decisions and actions meant and had noticable effects in the game "universe", and you had to think careful about what you did. Also, there was not always a clear cut "good/neutral/evil" take on everything. Sometimes you had to do "evil" things to achieve a "good" end to tasks. Sometimes taking a neutral stance would end up having very negative ramifications down the road. For example, if you optimized the power plant at Gecko, Vault City would come in and take over, killing most of the ghouls. Something seeminly good or innocent had very bad results at the end.
Given Beth's comments in the distant and recent past, I'm rather worried. Beth has not had a very good history at all of listening to it's fans, as the Morrowind/Oblivion shift clearly shows. The fact that this is also being co-developed for the console worries me, as games like this do tend to get "dumbed down". I don't mean that last statement as a troll, but it is in some ways reality, if you look at cascading effects. Consoles as a rule must have a much simpler interface for the gamepads, this in turn will often eliminate many possiblities that can only be accomplished using a keyboard/mouse. Also, devs sometimes do a horribly crappy job with the interfaces between the platforms. Look at Oblivion out of the box (which the devs admitted was horrible on the PC) and Deus Ex 2.
As someone pointed out in a really good blog post, Fallout is one of those things that has become "larger than itself". The old guard and old fan-base are inextricably linked to the franchise, and they're angry at what's been done with it so far. Beth has a real pickle on their hands, because they could ignore that sizeable old guard, but they run the risk of tanking sales because of that, that even their hardcore fanboys won't be able to save them from. The fact that they "ignored" their fanbase that had survived the switch from Daggerfall to Morrowind when they released Oblivion also does not bode well in my view. Someone made a comment that I think has some honest truth in it, which is that Beth aimed (and succeeded) in making a "deep" FPS. I can't really elaborate on this without sounding a bit condescending so I'll stop, I hope people understood the intent of what I am repeating here.
Hopefully we will see some real information and news soon. Beth's silence so far hasn't done much to alay the fears, if anything it's probably added more fuel to the fire if the Beth FO3 forums are any indication.
Cheers all
:balloon2:
I have to agree with Whacker's sentiments towards the handlign of Oblvion. Again, I too entered TES with Morrowind, which I cherish to this day.
I hope for the best, but realistically, Fallout3 has such huge expectations that it will be nearly impossible to meet them. Still, I hope....
OK, bear with me here a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
*puts on tinfoil hat*
I definitely, absolutely think it's possible to make a worthy sequel to this game, giving it a "modern" spin AND staying true to what Fallout represents.
That said...
I wonder if Bethseda got into this "with a bone to pick", so to speak. Let's examine some ideas here, keep in mind that much of this is my conjecture backed up with a few facts.
First, look at what Bethesda has done over the years with their TES games. One could argue, very successfully IMO, that they're moving distinctly away from being RPGs to action games.
Second, I propose that with the 3 most recent iterations of the TES games, Beth has lost a very decent sized chunk of their original fanbase. I've done enough reading to realize that there was a decent backlash in the move from Daggerfall to Morrowind. In doing this move, they arguably alienated a number of their older fans, some of whom we can assume stopped buying games at that point. If we look at the transition from Morrowind to Oblivion, it's much more obvious due to the fact that this is a relatively recent event, that there was an even greater backlash from the then-existing fanbase. One only needs to browse the forums now and dig up old threads to see that there is a very sizeable group of disenchanted people.
Third, following in the above, Oblivion sold very well, all things considered. As of Jan 2007, apparently 3 million total sales including the console. Morrowind has sold apparently 4 million units (both console and PC) as of right now, BUT we have to take into account that MW is also almost 5 years old, and Oblivion isn't even 1 year old yet. Oblivion also sold 1.7 million units by April of '06, which is insane. Clearly Oblivion is pacing itself to outsell Morrowind by a good margin.
Fourth, one could further argue that Oblivion's runaway sales is due to them tailoring the game to a much wider audience than their original existing Daggerfall/Morrowind base. I have absolutely no data to back this up, I don't know what Morrowind's sales looked like around launch, nor could I find how well Daggerfall sold.
Here's my idea. If you can accept the above as reasonable, I propose that Bethesda picked up the Fallout franchise and plan to do the exact same thing with it that they did with Oblivion, and when it sells like hotcakes, that will "prove" to themselves and the world that one doesn't need existing fans (hence, they can ignore the old guard) and still be very commercially viable. This, coupled with I am willing to bet they are still kind of annoyed at a lot of the bad press and complaints (much from their existing fanbase) they've been getting since launch. So in short, this will be a major "in your face!" if they succeed.
So this is a giant stretch, and arguably not a business decision, but I can see something of one in there. It's more of a "proof of concept" that if you market to the larger audience, those sales will more than make up for losing existing customers. Hence why I think they knowingly bought this franchise, NMA and all, as there's some real possible value in demonstrating a development tactic with an old/existing franchise, one with an ANGRY fanbase at that.
OK this is a giant stretch, probably untrue (mostly). You can take off your tinfoil hats now. :grin:
:balloon2:
Two stupid questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
What was special about S.P.E.C.I.A.L.? I never played the game, so I'm curious.
And, about the cameras, would you accept something like, say, NWN2's camera?
SPECIAL had four elements:Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
- attributes (fixed at start, you allocated points across 7 stats - strength, intelligence, charisma, toughness, agility, perception, luck)
- traits (pick two at start - they have upsides and downsides)
- skills (put points in as you level, with more points if intelligent - eg. small guns, speech, lockpicking etc)
- perks (get one every 3 levels - e.g. night vision, sniper, rapid rate of fire etc)
One nice thing about the system was that it provided a lot of variety and potential for customisation.
Another nice thing was its balance - for example, of each of the six attributes, the manual says "of course, this is the most important" and it's almost true: all the stats matter (unlike DnD where a class cares about only 3 stats).
Together the variety and balance meant character design and levelling up involved interesting and rewarding choices. The fact that you could solve some quests with a variety of different skills (and not just whacking everything) added to this.
The perks were also very juicy - I guess they correspond to "feats" in DnD.
To be honest, I think the Morrowind/Oblivion system also has many of the above virtues and in many ways reminds me of SPECIAL. Both SPECIAL and the TES system beat D20/DnD for a sole protagonist (as opposed to party-based) game. The one thing I dislike about the Morrowind/Oblivion system is the way it encourages artificial play styles (switching weapons/armour, letting yourself getting whacked by mudcrabs etc) to get the 5x attribute bonus on level up.
What is this SPECIAL you're talking about?
Entering "SPECIAL", even with other words like game or RPG doesn't seem to give me any results, it sounds like a mix of JA2, Lionheart and Silent Storm so I'm curious.
And btw, I never played any Fallout and never bought or played Oblivion, mainly because of the level scaling.
[QUOTE=Husar]What is this SPECIAL you're talking about?
It's just the system for character creation and levelling in the Fallout games. I am not sure I can explain it any more than I have done in my previous post. You can read some of the guides on gamefaqs if you want to know more. Better still, follow froggy and buy the Fallout games - SPECIAL is one of one of their standout features.
I have a vague memory that Lionheart used a variant of the SPECIAL system, but I never played the game.Quote:
, it sounds like a mix of JA2, Lionheart and Silent Storm so I'm curious.
Hmm ... I still have Fallout 1+2 around somewhere - both where part of a game compilation I bought a couple of years ago - but I somehow never found the time to go beyond installing them and having a quick look.
Perhaps I should finally take the time and actually go a bit deeper :thinking:
I think you're right and wrong. Bethesda doesn't pay any attention at all to what goes on at NMA, RPG Codex, and similar places. Nothing constructive ever comes out of those sites, so there's little point in trying to address their complaints. Furthermore, they know there's no way they can please those people, so they're not trying. I don't think Bethesda is trying to prove anything to anyone. When it comes down to it, no matter how many complaints there may be about Oblivion, they're a really successful game developer at the moment. They don't need to prove anything, because they already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
That said, I definitely agree that they're just doing their own thing with the Fallout franchise. They bought it, so it's their IP now and they can do whatever they want. They're definitely putting a lot of effort into creating a world that has the same style as the original games, but I don't think they're trying to recreate those games in actual play style. I personally have no problems with this and I'm interested to see what they come up with. The NMA people will probably say that there's no way to do a Fallout game without an isometric view and turn-based combat. I think that type of thinking is narrow minded, at best, and disastrous for the entire game industry, at worst. Games need to move and develop. People rarely want the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again. I have faith that Bethesda will move Fallout in a new and interesting direction. I could well be wrong, but I think those people that condemn them because they're not making a clone of the first two games are a bit selfish.
Will be the most beneficial activity you'll be doing after breathing. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Like a lot of classic RPGs, they are rather slow burners. FO2, for example, is possibly my favorite CRPG of all time, but I have to repetitively slaughter a lot of rats, scorpions and geckos before it really takes off. However, I find the atmosphere and world very immersive, and it does become very rewarding due to the epic scale - when the ending comes, and you see how your actions changed the fate of the places you have visited, it is strangely moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I would like to bring up another point and say that since the same people who made Oblivion will be working on FO3 there is a good chance it may be as moddable as Morrowind and Oblivion. There are some seriously cool and powerful mods for MW and OB, some of which dramatically improve gameplay. So even if FO3 is released and isn't quite as great as people expect I have faith modders will set things right.
Good points but per my previous paragraph, monster level scaling issues were quickly and easily resolved in MW and OB thanks to the incredibly powerful editors that shipped with the games and the efforts of countless ambitious modders. Of course modding means little to console gamers but screw 'em!Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I love RPG and FPS games equally but am always wary when developers attempt to combine the two. Often the result is gameplay that is skewed heavily in favor of FPS skills, tactics and AI/gameplay exploits with stats and attributes having minimal effect on the outcome.
Realistic melee combat is very hard to model correctly in any game, let alone one that factors in stats and skills into the equation. Severance: Blade of Darkness and Rune are some of the most realistic FPS melee oriented games ever made but they were devoid of any RPG element. Even Mount and Blade fails to deliver the RPG element effectively. Melee combat is hard enough but when incorporated into a RPG it can be a bit much. If FO3 has as much depth as its predecessors then I'd much rather have combat resolved using round based combat like in KOTOR.
Econ gave a great summary in his post. Here's a link to the wiki article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECIAL_SystemQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The only thing I'll offer is that you should be in the proper frame of mind when you do so. These games are OLD, FO1 was considered graphically dated when it was first released in '97. It's not very pretty, but if you stick with it and keep a OPEN positive mindset, you'll start to get into the depth of story, the gritty and often hilarious settings, campy humor, outstanding turn based gameplay. Definitely RTFM to start with, and go through the walkthrough at the start to learn how the game works, I made that mistake and thrashed around for about half an hour trying to figure out the interface. If you stick with it though, you'll be rewarded with one of the best cRPG experiences you can ever have. Also, start with Fallout 1 before you do 2, not only because of story, but so you can see how the game itself progresses and eventually appreciate some of the improvements made with Fallout 2. Don't forget killap's fan-made patch for FO2 when you do get to it, it makes it playable, stock patched v1.02d (which was the last patch) was unplayable in my opinion due to scripting bugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Both of these statements are patently false. NMA is often poorly represented by a few very loud, rude, vocal individuals with severe bones to pick, if you read their forums you'll find that there are a good deal of well spoken, polite, yet dedicated individuals. Codex is similar but also very different as it's not dedicated or focused on anything in particular. It's entirely possible to "please" the old Fallout crowd in my view, it's just going to take some real work to do so and certain tenants must be adhered to.Quote:
Nothing constructive ever comes out of those sites, so there's little point in trying to address their complaints. Furthermore, they know there's no way they can please those people, so they're not trying.
Perhaps this is my fault for not elaborating enough. They certainly are successful if you use the definition of sales as the measuring stick. The issue is, is that their current product is not an RPG, which is mainly how they portrayed and marketed it as. If Beth wants to continue down the road they are with their games, that's certainly their perogative and they'll probably be highly successful, the issue that the RPG crowd has is that they aren't going to be making RPGs anymore and as such should stop trying to push them as such. I subscribe completely to this view.Quote:
I don't think Bethesda is trying to prove anything to anyone. When it comes down to it, no matter how many complaints there may be about Oblivion, they're a really successful game developer at the moment. They don't need to prove anything, because they already have.
I both agree and disagre here. I agree in that I'd like to see a "fresh" look at the whole Fallout gameplay style. For example, doing away with the old hexes for positioning would open up a bunch of new possibilities as I see it. The problem is that certain tenants of what the series is about, stuff like what I said in earlier posts, must be adhered to in order to stay with the intent of what the series is. Of course it's possible to make a FPS or an RTS set in the Fallout universe, it would *not* be Fallout.Quote:
but I don't think they're trying to recreate those games in actual play style. I personally have no problems with this and I'm interested to see what they come up with.
Many of them do say isometric view is, but I could do without it. Any type of overhead cam, esp. an adjusable one, would be outstanding in my view. Turn-based combat is indeed absolutely integral.Quote:
The NMA people will probably say that there's no way to do a Fallout game without an isometric view and turn-based combat.
Sorry, but this is crap. "Real-time" does not equal better. "Twitch-based" does not equal better. "Developing" does not mean switching away from a proven, tried and true workable turn-based system that represents the core of whatever it is that's being worked on. There's something to be said for "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and not making changes just for the sake of making changes, which given Beth's statements and arrogance is exactly what I fear they will do. This really annoys me when people equate "real-time" with new hotness and "turn-based" with old and busted.Quote:
I think that type of thinking is narrow minded, at best, and disastrous for the entire game industry, at worst. Games need to move and develop.
So taking what I think the intent of your statement is here here, what exactly do you think you've been playing over the past umpteen years? Please don't tell me that "the TW games aren't the same thing over and over and over" because they are. Quake? Doom? Heh. Counter-strike 1 and Source? If anything those games prove that people DO play the same stuff over and over again and they lap it up like nectar.Quote:
People rarely want the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again.
Sadly I agree that they'll take it in whatever direction they want. I think we both differ on what the definition of "interesting" is in this case.Quote:
I have faith that Bethesda will move Fallout in a new and interesting direction.
I wouldn't call it selfish, but I agree it's uncalled for, nor do I think that the old guard is demanding a "clone". The thing that they want is to keep the few core tenants of what Fallout is and represents untarnished. That is, we want a real cRPG that plays like one, not an action oriented FPS.Quote:
I could well be wrong, but I think those people that condemn them because they're not making a clone of the first two games are a bit selfish.
This is one of these fallacies put forward by people at RPG Codex: the notion that an RPG must give you the options to do whatever you want in a free universe. CRPGs are not pen and paper gaming. They probably never will be. You can scream to the heavens all you want that Diablo is not an RPG, but the majority of gamers won't agree with you on that. For whatever reason, the very definition of RPG has changed to mean a game where you can develop the stats/skills of the character over time. Anything that meets that requirement is deemed an RPG by the majority of gamers and by the industry. When it comes to definitions like this, majority rules. Bethesda properly promoted Oblivion as an RPG because by current standards, it is an RPG.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
I never said real-time was better. I've always been a huge turn-based strategy fan and I'm currently spending all my free time playing a classic style hex game. I don't understand how you got the idea that I dislike turn-based games. Sounds to me like you don't like my opinion and are seeing demons in my words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
I'm not saying things have to change every single year, no matter what. Change for the sake of being different isn't the point. It's about innovation and thinking of new ways of doing things that no one has done before. To a certain extent there are broad genres that encompass everything, but that doesn't mean that it's always been the same thing over and over again. Are all FPS shooters the same as Wolfenstein 3D? If you define them in a very broad sense, sure, but if you compare their actual entertainment and artistic value, most are very different from one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
The Fallout engine (dunno the name of it) evolved into the Infinity engine, which most people would probably agree was better in every aspect. The Infinity engine itself evolved into the Aurora engine, which has turned out to be good for certain games, and bad for others (IMO). Does that mean that Jade Empire is the same game as Fallout? Not even close, but one is a direct descendant of the other. Change, be it big or small, keeps life interesting. It's rare for an entire genre to die (even Adventure gaming is still hanging on) and it's rare for a new genre to be born (RTS and MMO are the most recent additions I can think of, and even they are very old now). That doesn't mean that advancements can't be made within a genre though.
If a change is bad, the market will generally reject it and it will die. If a change is good, the market will generally embrace it and it will grow. It is a shame that sometimes the market won't like the same things we do as individuals, but that's not the fault of the companies that make the games.
I read in the forums that F3 will be released for consoles as well.
Let me know please, if there are any games which didn't screw up after having console versions additionally. :embarassed:
I take console gaming industry more of action-packed, due to both controller limitations and the sole idea of consoles "easy & quick entertainment". So deciding to release a game's console versions thoroughly changes the production process of a game. And I fear such change may...Uuhh..I really don't want to imagine that. :toilet:
P.S. FM 2007 has been a disaster. Guess what, it's the first time the series was planned for consoles as well from the start.
I can see why RPG fans would find the FPS gameplay of Oblivion not to their liking, however I would agree with Econ that the TES games have always been that style. For me they were perfect as I had played NWN and become gradually bored with watching the characters jump around and jab each other, whilst all I could do was cast the occasional spell. TES allowed me to really become immersed in an RPG for the first time (though NWN was stiil a good game), and Oblivion took that further with more satisfying combat, especially archery, better conversations and more varied quests. The addition of some truly original mods such as Cats and rats, natural environments and dwemer specatcles topped it all off. I seriously hope similar plugins are available for fallout 3.
Back on topic... Despite my love for FPS RPGs I still have the urge to check out the first two fallouts. Since i don't want to spend any money yet, I thought I would check out the demos. Does anybody know whether they are compatible with XP (n.b. I know froggy's queries have already been answered, but the demos are unlikely to have been upgraded, unlike the latest retail version)?
Edit: For some rersason I dodn't notice the numerous posts below Econ's when I posted this so its a bit of an out of date response. The question above still stands though. Also I do know of a pc/console game that is good: Thief Deadly Shadows. Despised by much of the Thief hardcore yet its what got me into the series in the frst place, and its still a damn fine game.
Hehe - you really made me dig out these CD-ROMs again, guys ~:) (thanks also for the tips, Whacker.
It seems that FO2 is running properly under XP however I do not have any sound for FO1 - apparently I have to manually configure my "soundcard" ... tried a lot of combinations without satisfying results ~:(
Any recommendations?
:bow:
Morrowind. It was released for PC and Xbox at the same time and didn't suffer (IMO) from the process. That said, Morrowind was clearly designed for the PC first and then ported to the console. Oblivion was designed for both console and PC at the same time, and I was very much annoyed with the size of the fonts and other such things which were clearly due to console compatibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
PC games which get ported to consoles aren't really impacted at all but, like you, I definitely grit my teeth when I hear that a game I am looking forward to will be designed for both at the same time. Fortunately in Oblivion there were mods out within days that addressed the main problems I had with the residual 'consoleness' of the game. I would expect the same from Fallout 3.
Again, this is where I submit that the term "RPG" is one of the most misused, bastardized, thrown-around terms in the game industry today. Stat/skill development does NOT define an RPG, it's much more than that, and that's the problem that we have. Pen and paper doesn't define an RPG either. In the same vein, 1 million angry twitch-style gamers who've never experienced a real RPG before screaming that Oblivion is an RPG, doesn't make it one. I suspect that this issue really boils down to being an impasse at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Then that's simply my misinterpretation. I'm trying to read your statements, take them at their meaning and not try to assume too much based on the entirity of your post. I read thost particular statements to mean what I said earlier, that real-time = better, hence the "demons in your words."Quote:
I never said real-time was better. I've always been a huge turn-based strategy fan and I'm currently spending all my free time playing a classic style hex game. I don't understand how you got the idea that I dislike turn-based games. Sounds to me like you don't like my opinion and are seeing demons in my words.
For the record I wouldn't be opposed to something like the NWN/KOTOR "real time turn" system, but it'd need to have some significant changes to fully implement the SPECIAL system and combat mechanics. Honestly I think that'd be pretty awesome, BUT it would also be very easy to screw up completely.
OK, if I take THOSE statements you just made, I wholeheartedly agree. Change in the way of real innovation is always good, and needed for the industry and gaming to advance. The problem that I had, and how I was reading your previous statements and intent, was something along the lines of "huge/radical changes are needed for this to be successful and enjoyable", hence my disagreement. I'd LOVE to see this in gorgeous 3D, gritty atmosphere and all, with lifelike surround sound and another soundtrack that stays on my ipod forever.Quote:
I'm not saying things have to change every single year, no matter what. Change for the sake of being different isn't the point. It's about innovation and thinking of new ways of doing things that no one has done before. To a certain extent there are broad genres that encompass everything, but that doesn't mean that it's always been the same thing over and over again. Are all FPS shooters the same as Wolfenstein 3D? If you define them in a very broad sense, sure, but if you compare their actual entertainment and artistic value, most are very different from one another.
The Fallout engine (dunno the name of it) evolved into the Infinity engine, which most people would probably agree was better in every aspect. The Infinity engine itself evolved into the Aurora engine, which has turned out to be good for certain games, and bad for others (IMO). Does that mean that Jade Empire is the same game as Fallout? Not even close, but one is a direct descendant of the other. Change, be it big or small, keeps life interesting. It's rare for an entire genre to die (even Adventure gaming is still hanging on) and it's rare for a new genre to be born (RTS and MMO are the most recent additions I can think of, and even they are very old now). That doesn't mean that advancements can't be made within a genre though.
If a change is bad, the market will generally reject it and it will die. If a change is good, the market will generally embrace it and it will grow. It is a shame that sometimes the market won't like the same things we do as individuals, but that's not the fault of the companies that make the games.
My problem is again that I do not want to see this holiest of holies butchered by ignoring/removing the core elements of what it represents. A perfect example of what I fear is another Deus Ex. The original was and still is one of the best PC games that many of us have experienced, and is consistently in the top of the top-x game lists whenever another rag or site coughes them up. Compare that to it's sequel, which by all accounts failed miserably, which I submit was due to the developers losing sight of and failing to account for the core elements of what Deus Ex was and represented. That and I blame the Xbox... but that's another argument.
@ LEN
KOTOR1 stands out as an example of a game that was very well done on both PC and console. The console version played well, and the PC version had an excellent, tailored interface that worked exceptionally well, and the graphics scaled. The gameplay was done in such a way that it just felt right when I played it on the PC, and again when I tried it on my friends xbrick. In the same vein as above, Deus Ex 2, Thief 3, and Oblivion stand out as games that in my view (and in their dev's views in some cases) utterly failed at having effective controls and interfaces between the platforms, where it was clear to me that the console was heavily favored. Simple does not = better.
Well F2 rarely causes any problems on XP however I have come across with black screen problems several times with F1. Just never leave for a game without your patches. For F1 and F2 there. (Since I don't know which language version you have, I gave the category link. Download the ones saying "offical")
It seems that running the 1.1 patch in compability modus did the trick :beam:
Thanks a lot!
:bow:
Apologies for wandering off topic, but I've not seem anyone mention this game here before and it doesn't seem worth starting a new topic on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Did anyone play it? If so, how was it? Back when it was released I couldn't afford it and I had other games to play between exams. I have vague recollections of liking the demo. Much the same situation as Arcanum: of steamworks and magick obscura ended up in ~:(
I played it, most of it that is, I wasn't really overwhelmed though and stopped in the end because that part(don't want to spoil it) seemed almost impossible to do with my melee character.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
Well, I got it with a gaming magazine and I actually wouldn't have paid a lot more for it, it felt a bit old and the gameplay, AI etc weren't really great either IMO.
Not wanting to sound contrary, but I disliked the Lionheart demo so much I never got the game; the word of mouth was also abysmal. It was clearly repetitive hack n slash and not very good hack n slash. Arcanum, however, I still consider a flawed classic - the mournful music, unique atmosphere and wonderful courtly dialogue made up for its many flaws. I don't think Lionheart had any such virtues.Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
I've just realised: a lot of the Fallout team went to form Troika, who made Arcanum and Vampire Bloodlines. Vampire Bloodlines is pretty much exactly what I'd hope a first person real time Fallout 3 would be. Based on Morrowind/Oblivion, I can see Bethesda - on a good day - matching Bloodlines for atmosphere and combat (great and not so great respectively). But I don't see much sign of them being able to match the dialogue, sidequests and characters. However, I won't write them off as Morrowind/Oblivion are in many ways extraordinarily impressive games.
Yeah, I was pretty bummed when Troika was dismantled. I was very impressed with the TOEE engine and was hoping to see a new wave of epic D&D games (ala Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Tormet) using the new engine. Ah well, at least those games make the Total War games look totally bug-free, by comparison! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
~:eek: We have very similar taste in RPGs, so I'm inclinded to doubt my memory here, especially with Hussar's comments thrown in. I must have been thinking about a different game demo. I've started a new topic so I can stop hijacking this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I am also very skeptical about the FO3, for much of the reasons Whacker mentioned in that I do not like the direction that Bethesda is taking. I loved Daggerfall and Morrowind, but I quit playing Oblivion in less than two weeks and never looked back. Morrowind had less exploration and quests than Daggerfall, but there was an incentive to keep on playing so that you can improve your character and tackle the things that used to squish you earlier in the game. With monster scaling in Oblivion, that was gone too, and coupled with some other design decisions it all felt incredibly shallow. Why would I want to keep playing and leveling up if a) I could do whatever I want right from the beginning without much worry that I'll be involved in something I cannot handle, and b) if the same goblin cave feels just the same and takes just as much effort to go through on level 1 as it does on level 10? IMO, that's just saps all motivation and that feeling-good-about-myself feeling from the game, as there is basically no progress. The monsters and gear may look different, but there is no tangible difference to them whatsoever.
That said, I wouldn't mind if FO3 is a first-person game in a Fallout setting (though I cannot fathom why the turn-based tactical genre is all but dead these days). A good first-person post-apocalyptic RPG could be great fun if done right. I just don't have high hopes that it will have the depth and the RPG system to make it an immersive and enjoyable experience given the Bethesda's recent track record.
Also, sorry for sidetracking the thread a bit:
From some of the posts in this thread, I take it that somebody has made a mod to remove the level scaling of monsters/environment in Oblivion? If so, would somebody be so kind to direct me to it? I might give Oblivion another go if this was in fact fixed.
I'll clarify one point. If they give us the ability to do stuff first person, I don't think I'd care one whit, features = good. BUT, combat should be turn-based, top-down.
hrvojej, I do agree, in that my concern for this comes mainly from it being developed by Bethesda. There are a lot of people who keep saying debate and speculation is pointless, I think much of that is coming from them announcing the game and not giving any details or information to go on whatsoever, probably part of the hype machine at work. As for some saying the comparison between Oblivion and FO3 isn't fair, it's completely fair. After all, Oblivion is Beth's cash cow, and the style of gameplay is arguably what sucked in a much larger fanbase than the last game, which is precisely what scares me. Further, other say that "complaining" or "whining" now before we have details is pointless, as someone else pointed out in their own forums, "Would you rather we wait until they're much farther along in the design phase and have decided on certain aspects of the game (mistakes, as they put it), or that we make some noise now in hopes that it is heard and taken into account, before the 'mistakes' have taken too much root and would be impossible to change at that point?", or something along those lines. That's essentially my view.
Slightly but not exactly offtopic, saw this link over at NMA earlier, thought it was pretty sweet. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...und+Zero&hl=en
In many ways, that would be what I'd like to see FO3 evolve. Chunky gooey 3D goodness, pretty slick camera design, non-hex based pathing system... Combat seemed pretty rough but not too bad at all. Deformable/destructable environments = :2thumbsup:
Cheers
:balloon2:
My Fallout pack has arrived, and I've installed and tested Fallout 1. It works.
I have the Virgin White label Fallout collection; it's all on one DVD, and has no hint of whether it's already patched or not. Is there any way I can tell if I need the official patches?
So, anyone got any tips for a frog? Character creation, things to do, things not to do, easily missible quests/places/goodies ... anything?
I suspect you are fine. I got the white label CD collection and I think it had the patches on, but I did not need to install them or something strange like that (it's been a while).Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
The Fallouts are like the BGs in that there are lots of things that are potentially missable. The problem is that if you use an external reference to find them, you end up losing the wonder of discovery while exploring the game world. With these games, I'd be inclined to try to play them blind and indeed "role-play" them - act as if you were stuck in the wasteland, rather than try to max your stats/power etc. They are one of the few CRPGs where actually role-playing would not be ludicrous.Quote:
So, anyone got any tips for a frog? Character creation, things to do, things not to do, easily missible quests/places/goodies ... anything?
As with most RPGs, save often. You can hit a random encounter that can get you killed in one shot; you can get stuck for eternity behind an immovable NPC (one thing FO2 fixed); your computer can crash or hit some weird glitch. Be forgiving - it's worth persevering.
In terms of character creation, it is worth planning your perks like you would your feats in DnD or KOTOR. The really good stuff comes late but often has formiddable prerequisites you have to plan for.
With stats, arguably the two most important are intelligence - as it gives you skill points on each level up - and agility - as it gives you action points in the turn-based combat. Going for 9 or 10 in those stats would not be excessive and indeed may be the norm (for me anyway). The DnD standbys - strength and toughness - are actually lesser stats here, although a strength of 6 would help you carry stuff and maybe necessary for the good armour. Perception helps shooting - a 6 or 8 would be good. It's probably good not to go below 4 in any stat. Taking the gifted trait makes the point-buy system so much more forgiving and is the no brainer choice in character creation.
With skills, small guns is the dominant combat skill so probably should be tagged (the second no brainer). Speech is useful too - there's a lot of talking in Fallout and you will encounter situations where fighting is not really feasible.
You should keep an eye out for recruitable NPCs. Ian (a chap in black leather jacket and blue jeans) and Dogmeat (a mottley grey dog) tend to be the favorites. Don't expect them to live forever, though: like you, they can die with one shot, but unlike you, they are controlled by a rather basic AI.
Which is another thing that you'll likely have to be forgiving about. ~:) You cannot directly control your party members, so keep in mind that sometimes, especially in battles, they'll be more trouble than help. If you just accept it as a part of the game, it's fine, but don't expect to have the support of a well synched party of BG kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
You can give them some instructions (talk to them when they are part of you party) such as weapon prefences, how close to stay to use and agression levels and such...Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
As I recall if you did a good job of equiping them things where not so bad...
Early battles with bandits can be a nightmare... always remember, running away is an option!! :2thumbsup:
Yay!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by frogbeastegg
When you fire it up and are at the main menu, check the rightmost bottom. Should faintly say "1.2".Quote:
I have the Virgin White label Fallout collection; it's all on one DVD, and has no hint of whether it's already patched or not. Is there any way I can tell if I need the official patches?
Always keep water handy so that the skin will avoid drying out and dehydration. A good diet of insects should keep it happy, and keep the water fresh.Quote:
So, anyone got any tips for a frog?
If your game isn't v1.2, I'd get the v1.2 patch first and install:Quote:
Character creation, things to do, things not to do, easily missible quests/places/goodies ... anything?
http://www.teamx.ru/cgi-bin/load.cgi.../fallup12w.rar
Next, get the "unofficial" fan patch that fixes a few more bugs, mainly script/map stuff.
http://www.teamx.ru/cgi-bin/load.cgi...s/fallup13.rar
Install both in that order (if the first one's needed, second one def. will be) and you should be ready to rock.
Here's where this game shines. What do you want to do? Smooth talker? Long range death? Mindless brawler? The game is pretty straightforward on what the attributes do. The only thing in skills that had me confused for awhile was energy weapons vs. big guns, as there are some "big energy weapons", but it turns out these are governed only by the energy weapon skill. As for the two optional traits you can pick to start with, all I can really say is "gifted + skilled" is regarded as extremely cheap, as it makes your character a bit of a god.
Unless you want spoilers, here's some initial recommendations for your first game that I think most of us would agree to.
- Do NOT try your first game with a low INT char. It's hilarious if you eventually do try to do so (Wubba!), but don't try it first game. In fact I would not put any skill under 4 or 5 if you can help it. You sound like the type who knows how d20 RPGs work, SPECIAL really isn't all that much different so you should get the hang.
- Don't try to be a HtH brawler, tag small guns as one of your 3 primary skills. Small guns are the most common until late game, and getting this up there with a good gun like the sniper rifle will help you immensely.
- Skills that I personally do NOT recommend tagging: sneak, first aid, doctor, steal. Skills I wouldn't recommend datting unless they are directly relevant to your combat style: big guns, throwing, melee weapons. Reason is they are all useless/uncommon items, mostly unused in the game, or work decently even at low values. I say Big Guns, but one should always tag at least one type of weapon/combat IMO.
- With a high enough barter (110+), you can technically get stuff for free, in that the same item you are trading for, say a stimpack vs stimpack, your price will always be $100, the other persons can get as low as $50, so you can "clean them out". Some people don't like this, I think it's semi-legit.
- Talk to everyone.
- You WILL sometimes be forced into combat situations, even if you try playing a total pacifist. It's sorta possible to complete the game without killing anyone/anything, but I wouldn't recommend it first go.
- Follow the initial tutorial in the manual. You'll create a disposable char. Use that to get the hang of the interface. Shift runs, I didn't figure that out for about 2 hours. :wall:
- Remember, if you are out on the world map and click on your position triangle in the middle of nowhere, you'll come up in some randomly picked map. If you drop stuff here and leave, it will be gone forever.
- There's random stuff on the floors in many maps, and it can be REALLY hard to see some of them. I'll give you one spoiler up front to show you how big of a pain it is. When you finally do get to vault 15, on the 2nd sublevel, absolute bottom-left room, in the bathroom on the floor is a rifle. Good luck finding it. :yes:
My personal suggestions (my play style), some may disagree:
- Conserve ammo in the start. It'll become plentiful later on though. It's fun to box with the rats. :viking:Don't be shy about using it though, if the situation and the critters warrant.
- Steal everything that's not bolted down. Only reason not to do it is if you want to self-impose some kind of limitations or really "roleplay". Seriously this game should be named "Kleptomania" for me.
- Stash stuff you think you might need later in bookcases or other areas, nobody will take it and it won't disappear. There's a specific area/map in the game that I use as my own personal storage space where I keep literally just about everything.
There's also a few.......... "exploits" that you may end up figuring out. There's only one instance that I purposefully use them in normal gameplay, it's really up to you if you choose to use them or not. /shrug
Enjoy the game above all else. These truly are the best of the best, you'll see why we put them on the pedastels as examples for yourself now.
:balloon2:
I got round to playing the FO1 demo last weekend. Overall i'm impressed by how well the graphics have held up over the years, and the atmosphere is spot on despite the lack of music in XP. However, what I was dissappointed with was the size of the area, which was called a city but consisted of two buildings each housing rival gangs that were barely 3 feet away, and the amount of combat. I tried to go about things relatively peacefuly but the result was always lots of guns firing, and me either being wasted straight away or, if I was lucky, hiding in a corner and taking out everyone else. I thought there was supposed to be more to the game than striding around with a chaingun blowing people to pieces. Please tell me thats the case!
And people say that games have more bugs today.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Nothing against Fallout, just something I was reminded of.~;)
It's a demo - IIRC you did not see a city. The full game is no Daggerfall or even Morrowind in scale, but it is big enough. FO2 is maybe twice as big. The demo is combat heavy and basically gives you a taste of what FO combat is like. I rather like it, in a Sin City over-the top kind of way. But for CRPGs, the full games are relatively combat light (especially FO1) - even compared to Baldur's Gate, let alone the hack n slash IWD type games. Indeed, I often wanted more combat. You can play for hours just talking to people and doing non-combat quests. But on balance, I think the balance of combat and other stuff is one of the game's main strengths - it really adds to the credibility and immersion of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Thief
Phew!!! That's a relief. I'm more thna happy to play a game with that kind of combat. In fact I think its probably the best system for top-down/isometric RPGs. But the level of violence in the demo really was overwhelming at times. Now all I need to do is wait until my exams are over, then crawl out of my vault of Fallout ignorance into an apocolyptic paradise. Thanks for introducing me to these games everyone.:2thumbsup:
Started playing FO2 for the first time.
Having huge trouble with money and staying alive.
Any tips for a newbie ??
Try to sell some deaders or steal some jink to get a few coppers.
well I haven't found much stuff to be quite frank.
All I have found is a few scorpion tails and a pair of claws, all which is already sold and I spent the money on healing powder.
After that I haven't found anything and nothing is dropping.
And I keep getting killed when I'm in the toxic caves looking for that chick's bf.
The spear isn't the best weapon around lol.
Weapons are scarce at this very early stage of the game. I would not spend money on healing powder - you know you can use the first aid and doctor skills to heal yourself? And you get XP for doing so. Not much good in combat, it's true but still - most combat areas you can flee from or pace yourself in. Stims, however, are worth hoarding - weigh nothing and very useful in tough fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
If the problem is the radiation, avoid stepping in the green slime. Make sure you wear those rubber boots. Take Rad-X if you can find it to prevent radiation sickness.Quote:
And I keep getting killed when I'm in the toxic caves looking for that chick's bf.
The spear has a range 2, so it is not that bad early on. If the problem is the critters, be careful you exploit the turnbased system - especially in melee. For example, it's often best to let the critters come to you when they will be out of action points and so you get a few free hits. If you have a few APs left, it can be best to use them to run away, then the critter will follow you and may not have enough APs left to hit you.Quote:
The spear isn't the best weapon around lol.
You may have gone to the toxic caves too soon. If you do the quest to deal with the rats in the west part of Klamath, you will find a pistol which helps a lot dealing with the golden geckos in the toxic caves. Equally important - it will give you the XP to level up a few times, allowing you to put skill points in your combat skills. There's also a quest in Klamath where you are rewarded with the ability to skin geckos, giving you a little earner.
Having high combat skill helps accuracy a lot - once you get high enough, you can start going for the eyes and that makes things much easier. It's not hard to raise a combat skill or two to 100% early on in the game if you have tagged it and have high INT. Other skills can wait. There are diminishing returns to investing points in a given skill anyway, so often you can get one to 80 or 100 quickly, then pace yourself (you normally don't need more than 120 in anything).
It's the geckos that are the problem.
A single gecko is no problem but it's when they are 2 the real problem begins.
And no I haven't done the rat quest, haven't even seen it.
Only quest that I did in that town was guarding this guy's cattle.
But I will look for the rat quest.
There's a newstand outside the bar (Annie's bar?) that you first arrive at in Klamath. On it, you will find notices about half a dozen different quests. The toxic caves is the hardest. I'm not sure if the rat one is on it, but you can find it by wondering onto the map west of that one and asking around.
You are making me want to fire up that game again.
that's the reward for rescueing the guy trapped in the gecko caves. Oh, and when you are a much higher level you want to go back to that cave.Quote:
There's also a quest in Klamath where you are rewarded with the ability to skin geckos, giving you a little earner.
And in fallout 2 doctor is a MUST. The perks you get from it are just too good to pass up, even for combat.
Guys apparently NMA released the tech demo for Fallout 3 Van Buren, don't be too excited though, its a buggy peice of :furious3:
Though it works kinda, not much in it however :|
Eugh, i forgot the link, here it is:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dlo...le&file_id=892
Thanks, exactly what I wanted.Quote:
Loads of tips!
The game is pre-patched. Which is nice. Possibly this edition has been slightly tweaked for modern computers, explaining why I have music and others here don't.
I must say the interface reeks. Too much clicking, and the result is not always what I wished for. I got killed by a mob in that first town because I looked at a bookcase instead of walking past it.
Unfortunately for me, Fallout is not as playable as it appeared; it's stuffed chock full of graphical glitches. My interface keeps disappearing for one, text is unreadable half the time for another. It's mildly unplayable. Any ideas?
Lol! :gring:Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
EDIT: 150 days?! I rested to heal after one fight with a scorpion I found in a random encounter, and it took 9 days! There had better not be much to do before that timelimit is removed; I like to take my time in these games.
Hmm. Works fine for me - did you try Win98 compatibility mode? It sometimes helps with older games.Quote:
Unfortunately for me, Fallout is not as playable as it appeared; it's stuffed chock full of graphical glitches. My interface keeps disappearing for one, text is unreadable half the time for another. It's mildly unplayable. Any ideas?
Without spoiling much, you can extend the time limit quite easily by 100 days. The time limit can be removed completely as well, but that is near endgame anyways.Quote:
150 days?! I rested to heal after one fight with a scorpion I found in a random encounter, and it took 9 days! There had better not be much to do before that timelimit is removed; I like to take my time in these games.
Character creation tips:
Gifted is a must-have Trait. Drugs are great in tough spots, so Chem Resistant is another good one to pick - halved effect time is no biggie but avoiding addiction is very useful. Small Frame is so-and-so. Other Traits do generally more harm than good, with maybe the exception of Fast Shot, and whatever you do, don't pick Skilled.
Bonus Rate of Fire @ level 9: 7 Agi, 6 Int, 4 Per. Hitting requirements should be no problem.
Toughness is another good perk. 6 Str, 6 Lck. Harder to hit reqs with traditional agi-int characters, but damage resistance on top of armour is nothing to sneer at.
Going for Sniper is probably not smart in Fallout 1; it's 8 Per, 8 Agi @ level 18. Should be rather easy to attain in Fallout 2 though.
XP and skill-boosting perks are generally rubbish.
Drugs can be used prior to leveling to reach Perk requirements.
Yeah, no kidding. Ever since this thread started I've been resisting the urge to reinstall FO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21