Fallout 3 Combat

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Distance and monster level versus skill level is another big factor. If you use a leveling exploit, like talking to Pappy or the Sandman skill on kids in megaton, and go all the way to level 20 without putting a single skill point in any weapon skill then you aren't going to hit jack crap. I seriously mean that and you can literally have the barrel of the gun in their face and have a 5% chance to hit.

but yes, the game does take distance as too big of a factor in my opinion as well. Way to big. There are mods out there that fix this issue and hopefully bethsuda will give out an official patch doing this as well.

But how realistic is going to level 20 and not putting your skills into anything or picking up any bobble heads or picking up any books? By raising your level to 20 and keeping your skills artificially low you are creating an extremely unlikely scenario. My lowest skill at level 20 is around 50 right now. And that's the skill I absolutely hate.
 

Whitecloak

Diamond Member
May 4, 2001
6,074
2
0
I would have preferred a VATS only mode (i.e. only turn based) when combat began. That would have been more like FO1/2
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: jonks
You on the crack aint ya? Stalker is an FPS. F3 is an RPG. One deals damage based 100% on collision detection, the other rolls dice for probability of determining hits. What don't you get exactly?

F3 is not an FPS, it's an RPG in First Person. An FPRPG if you want.

If F3 was RPG only then I wouldn't need to aim at all, I'd just tell my guy which target to attack and he'd attack it. But the fact is that hit collision is in the game, I can hide behind barriers, the enemy can hide behind barriers, I can strafe to dodge or to get that lucky shot and I actually have to aim. These are elements of an FPS because FALLOUT 3 IS AN FPS/RPG HYBRID.

You guys can sit there and say "but noooooo it's just the viewpoint!" all fucking day long and it won't change that fact. Fallout 3 is not immune to combat criticism just because it has some RPG elements (and not even a lot of them -- the skill system is fucking shallow just like Oblivion). Hell, Deus Ex had more unique character builds than Fallout 3. So did Bloodlines. Bloodlines had better dialogue and story too.

And why are you trying to make it immune to such criticism? Because a game labels itself an RPG I should turn a blind eye to half of the fucking content? That doesn't even make sense.

You know what's funny, I'm one of the ones that said Fallout 3 should have been an SRPG. But guess what, it's not, they decided to go the FPS route and now they can deal with the criticism of that decision.

You're right, I went a little over the top. Sorry bout that.

Oblivion/F3 were simply RPGs in first person perspective, and to earn the 'hybrid' label a game has to do more than that, otherwise any game in FP will be considered an FPS hybrid as opposed to just being a game in FP. This isn't really a problem except that it renders the phrase meaningless.

I do think you are going over the top by claiming that F3 is an FPS that only has "some RPG elements" where you seem to be pushing the position that it's not really even an RPG! The game is undeniably an RPG with FPS elements, not an FPS with RPG elements (i.e. Stalker) We can make a list of what you need to be considered an RPG and F3 has just about all of em, while lacking the most essential elements of an FPS (speed, accuracy, and when you hit something it always gets damaged.)
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: skace
more varied graphics for destroyed structures (90% of fallout 3 has the same indoor office structure - it's literaly everywhere).

Are we both talking about Fallout 3? This isn't even close to true. Even the vaults don't look the same.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Are we both talking about Fallout 3? This isn't even close to true. Even the vaults don't look the same.

90% of the game (*indoor areas) features a generic office environment with paper on the ground. It struck me as odd and annoyed me when I saw this even in areas which have been populated by people for many years now. Like GNR.
 

JasonCoder

Golden Member
Feb 23, 2005
1,893
1
81
As a jaded BethSoft customer, I was dreading the random dungeon generator. I was pleasantly surprised that not only aren't things random but they are different in architecture, denizens and such. A grocery store doesn't look like a subway, doesn't look like a vault. Thank goodness.

Having said that, do the burnt out office buildings look the same. Mostly, yeah. But then most offices are pretty much the same drab corporate shit holes. BethSoft spent a lot of time on the environments... subways, building husks, vaults, shacks, museums, on and on.

I never feel like I'm grinding in FO3 and that's a good thing.
 

9mak9

Senior member
Dec 3, 2007
494
0
76
yeah maybe some of the indoor areas look similar but there are so many of them it hard to make say 500 indoor areas look all different...its really the outdoor environment that makes the game not the indoors...its the capital wasteland that is incredible to explore...
 

imported_Imp

Diamond Member
Dec 20, 2005
9,148
0
0
The indoors do look similar, but the layout and many different combinations of furniture make each one unique. In Oblivion, every cave looked like every cave, with the same light-hole, the same stalagmites and same chests. There was very little to interact with. I've explored a lot of the enter-able buildings in Fallout 3 and while things look familiar (except houses, but 1950's era, model/clone houses is excusable), it is light years ahead of Oblivion.

I guess THE major difference is the 'story' behind every building. Most buildings, even the generic ones, have a story (i.e. the sign and location in the area or neighbourhood). Oblivion just plomped down caves for shits and giggles. Now, it at least feels like you're going into the convenience store that got nuked, or the house people died after being nuked.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: Canai
Originally posted by: Dumac
Originally posted by: Canai
Yeah the whole 'headshots do same damage as shooting them in the foot' thing really killed it for me. VATS camera angles are terrible as well, always shaking about and showing me an elbow or leg or rock or something.

Wait, no they don't. In VATS the percent damage for headshots is consistantly higher.

I meant in normal combat. In VATS, you can shoot them anywhere a few times any they die. I usually aimed for the arms, since the % chance to hit was much higher usually.

If you are aiming at arms for kills instead of trying to cripple someone into disarming then you are probably playing at too low of a difficulty.

Headshots do more damage in both normal and VATS combat.

In VATS you get the benefit of seeing how much damage it will do. If a head shot is going to 95% kill something (meaning one shot won't do the trick) you may be better off taking two shots at the torso since the % hit is higher.

If the %hit is decent on the head for a given circumstance and the damage meter is indicating that it will be a one shot kill you should always take it. Doing just one shot will save AP for your other targets.
 

TheUnk

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2005
1,810
0
71
Originally posted by: Smilin
If you are aiming at arms for kills instead of trying to cripple someone into disarming then you are probably playing at too low of a difficulty.

Headshots do more damage in both normal and VATS combat.

In VATS you get the benefit of seeing how much damage it will do. If a head shot is going to 95% kill something (meaning one shot won't do the trick) you may be better off taking two shots at the torso since the % hit is higher.

If the %hit is decent on the head for a given circumstance and the damage meter is indicating that it will be a one shot kill you should always take it. Doing just one shot will save AP for your other targets.

Huh? I thought the % in VATS was for hit. Not dmg. You aren't making much sense or I'm just stupid.

95% chance to kill something, which to you means one shot won't do the trick? . . .
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
VATS regards both hit % and potential damage %. Every gun has a range of damage it can do (plus critical hits), which is how it worked in the old games. A high gun skill increases both chance to hit and the range of damage you're in.