Support NeoGAF

[Krowley]

Not too sure about that. If XCom and Fallout did one thing, it was give complexity and color to the system of combat. The whole action point system made it possible to do fun and creative things in combat. There are PLENTY of things about the combat system that simply won't be translatable to the combat system that Bethesda is going to make, and those things will be missed.

Why would they nessecarily be missed?

Maybe those things will be replaced with stuff that's new and better...

I enjoyed the combat at the time, but I certainly don't hold it on any kind of pedestal as a particularly great combat system. The things that made fallout great to me were the character creation/building, the world design, The open-endedness of the quests and the conversations.

Simplifying the combat doesn't nessecarily make it simpler... Not if it's also sped up. Even simple strategic elements can become very compelling if you have to think quickly on your feet.

No Mutants Allowed represents the absolute worst that internet fan communities can become. Long winded, self righteous and constantly acting like people owe them something because they might have bought a couple games almost a decade ago. They won't be happy with any game that isn't Fallout 2, period and I'm not sure why Bethesda even bothers acknowledging their existence.

Amen to that.

 

[Fragamemnon]

I figured it was such obvious slander I didn't really need to refute it.

I don't think NMA, or anyone associated with it, would really ever be in a position to get the benefit of the doubt in such a matter.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think NMA, or anyone associated with it, would really ever be in a position to get the benefit of the doubt in such a matter.

No, obviously, you wouldn't.

I enjoyed the combat at the time, but I certainly don't hold it on any kind of pedestal as a particularly great combat system.

Agreed. Lots of room for improving the original TB system. Too bad Bethesda isn't going to.

 

[Shake Appeal]

At what point does NMA begin to realise that the burden of proof rests on their shrieking minority community to disprove accusations of nostalgo-insanity, rather than the on the rest of the gaming world to disprove their supposed anti-NMA 'bias'?

 

[A Black Falcon]

I'm pretty optimistic about Fallout 3. I say this as someone who's an ardent proponent of turn-based combat (check this thread I made), someone concerned about the rampant dumbing-down in the industry, and someone who didn't particularly like Bethesda's previous output.

But all three of those things are in direct opposition to the kind of game Bethesda is making...

From June, a reminder that not everyone was happy with Van Buren: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6755177&postcount=249

Yeah, I know that. But the response was NOT all negative; there was a substantial amount of positive reactions as well. That is not true with Bethesda's Fallout. Really, compare the reactions and you'd see that they really were quite different.

As for the response to the techdemo, I'd think that some of its biggest problems -- the annoying camera controls, the realtime-only combat -- would have been fixed in the final release. I'm sure that there would have been some people on NMA who would have disliked Black Isle's Fallout 3 had it come out, but as I said... as universally as they dislike Bethesda Fallout 3? No way. Absolutely no way.

Still though, that quote of Josh Sawyer's is great...

Oh yes, I think at some point an NMA article pointed out that the substance of the complaints was quite different between the two games. I mean, with Van Buren there the complaints are about the details... with Bethesda's, it's about everything from the basic game concept on down. With Van Buren that basic concept was assumed to be good; the complaints were about lower-level, more technical things, like which kinds of guns they should have. The basic game system vs. arguments about car types? It's really not comparable.

Yes, it's fun and that's more or less what I sid about it. As to whether it would have been less popular or not if the battle system had been different, I can't speak to that, I can only go from my personal experience with both games.

Had the battle system been different, though still worked with the game, it still would have been a great game. And that's my point.

Yes, but a lot of the Fallout fans on sites like NMA wouldn't have been interested in the game with action combat, I think, and that was my point. The combat is a major part of what makes the game what it is...

So, more fun doesn't make it better? Why not? Isn't that the point of playing a videogame in the first play? And I disagree that using first-person realtime takes out the strategy and complexity. The pause system offers you the ability to plan your attacks better than pure realtime and with die rolls coming back [which makes this game more like Morrowind], it's not just about aiming the mouse. The strategy is different, but it's still present.

Morrowind's combat is NOT deep or complex. It's extremely simplistic and basic, just like Arena and Daggerfall (but without the unique 'move the mouse to swing' mechanism). There's absolutely no comparision between the combat in any TES game and the combat in Fallout. So no, I definitely reject the argument that the strategy is comparable.

Anyway, I think I said more viscerally fun; there is definitely more of a reaction to hitting something instead of just clicking on a skill and then the character. I didn't mean that the action way is actually more fun, though, as I think I said with my TIE Fighter/Rogue Squadron comparison and stuff... while it's a lot easier to kill a lot of TIEs in Rogue Squadron, TIE Fighter is a much more fun game because the depth ads a lot to the game and makes it more interesting. The same applies here, I think.

Shivering Isles and the Dark Brotherhood quests tells me that Bethesda has people that are talented in writing. Probably not as much as Black Isle had, but they've got some skill. And the books and journals that have always been well written. If they're following the Fallout style, that book writing skill will be more helpful than it was in Oblivion. But I don't know for sure if they're going to do it that way or not.

We'll see, but I'm extremely skeptical.

That's all true and fair, and pause can work well for this (need to see more from VATS for this), but considering all RPGs have been going with RT and RTwP, wouldn't it have been more interesting for Bethesda to go with a more expansive, innovate TB system? I agree Fallout's TB had a lot of flaws, but isn't the more obvious solution to that to try and fix the flaws, rather than dump the system>

How valid IS the Baldur's Gate comparison, anyway? I mean, BG had pausable realtime, but that wasn't what made it great, it's the huge variety of options you had to choose from WHEN paused -- and that many battles were unplayable without pausing to take the time to plan and execute strategy. I just can't see anything like that coming from Bethesda... (well, it won't be. You have only one character instead of six after all. But even beyond that...)

The more obvious solution would be to take what they know how to do well, or at least what they're familiar with, and expand upon that, implementing features and components as needed.

VATS is a first-person, realtime battle system that features a pause-for-accurate-aiming feature which utilizes skill points and is largely based on stats. It's got enough of the old to be familiar and enough of the new to be interesting, I'd say.

Yeah, Baldur's Gate doesn't seem like the right comparison.

... on another note, how does VATS compare to stuff like bullet-time? Is that a better comparison, dice-roll aspect ignored? I really don't know, I've never actually played a bullet-time game...

Well, I liked Fallout 1/2 and Morrowind/Oblivion, so I'll probably be happy either way.

Fallout 1 is a great game even if I never quite got around to finishing it, but Morrowind (and Arena)... well, you know what I think about that series, I think. I think that the TES games prove that focusing on scale above all else is a flawed concept. RPGs really need better characters, plot, and combat (and direction) than the TES games have. The TES games are impressive efforts in size and scale and world design, but in actual gameplay... I've never felt that it's worth it.

Agreed. Lots of room for improving the original TB system. Too bad Bethesda isn't going to.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[Brother None]

At what point does NMA begin to realise that the burden of proof rests on their shrieking minority community to disprove accusations of nostalgo-insanity, rather than the on the rest of the gaming world to disprove their supposed anti-NMA 'bias'?

You're absolutely right, I didn't mean to infringe on your basic human right to judge people based purely on preconceptions and assumptions.

How valid IS the Baldur's Gate comparison, anyway?

Pretty valid. VATS is just real-time with pause, what differs it from BioWare's traditional RTwP is the aiming ability when paused. The cinematic slow-mo gore death is just a superficial difference, not a mechanical one.

That's based on how it looks, tho', and Pete was playing through pretty fast, so I don't know 100% how it plays.

 

[Shake Appeal]

You're absolutely right, I didn't mean to infringe on your basic human right to judge ... based purely on preconceptions and assumptions.

Glass houses?

 

[Great Rumbler]

Yes, but a lot of the Fallout fans on sites like NMA wouldn't have been interested in the game with action combat, I think, and that was my point. The combat is a major part of what makes the game what it is...

Well, I don't care what NMA would have thought if the game had been different back in 1997. I know what I think about it and what I think about it is that the combat was one of the least important aspect in making the game memorable.

Morrowind's combat is NOT deep or complex. It's extremely simplistic and basic, just like Arena and Daggerfall (but without the unique 'move the mouse to swing' mechanism). There's absolutely no comparision between the combat in any TES game and the combat in Fallout. So no, I definitely reject the argument that the strategy is comparable.

Fallout uses Morrowind combat PLUS things that have never been in either game. You actually have the ability to aim for different parts of the thing that is attacking. This is something that has NEVER been done in a TES game before.

And how is Fallout's combat complex? You select a weapon and click on someone else until they die. Now, that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things, but we're not talking about something where you need to plot your moves up to five turns ahead in order to successfully complete a battle.

Fallout had a simple turn-based combat scheme that worked really well. Percentage of successfully attacking is clearly displayed on screen, based on distance and skill, and damage is plainly listed on the item menu. It's not like we're talking about chess or a RTS like Starcraft/Warcraft where every move should be planned with expert care.

We'll see, but I'm extremely skeptical.

How much have you played of Oblivion?

... on another note, how does VATS compare to stuff like bullet-time? Is that a better comparison, dice-roll aspect ignored? I really don't know, I've never actually played a bullet-time game...

Not a whole lot, since your attacks in pause mode are based on action points.

Fallout 1 is a great game even if I never quite got around to finishing it, but Morrowind (and Arena)... well, you know what I think about that series, I think. I think that the TES games prove that focusing on scale above all else is a flawed concept. RPGs really need better characters, plot, and combat (and direction) than the TES games have. The TES games are impressive efforts in size and scale and world design, but in actual gameplay... I've never felt that it's worth it.

You might not have finished Fallout 1, but I have. And I've finished Morrowind and Oblivion, as well as about half of Fallout 2.

Both series have their strengths.