[priscillaaa]

Indeed, you nuked the oil rig, and possible murdered everyone at Navarro depending on how you played your game and the official story.

[Jose ordaz]

Well that's one of the original ideas behind Fallout; the protagonist is this mysterious stranger who comes out of nowhere and either acts as a beacon of hope, a neutral wanderer, or a harbinger of destruction to the people of the wastes. Haven't you ever read one of those books or seen one of those movies where the protagonist is down on his luck, and out of nowhere comes this mysterious stranger to assist the protagonist? That's who you're supposed to be in Fallout. Granted you can be fairly neutral or even evil, but those are just two different outlooks for the same type of character.

Fallout 3 diminished this feeling quite a bit since the protagonist's father played a significant role in the plot. In fact the main quest wasn't your character's story at all; it was his or her father's told through the eyes of your character. Sort of like how Knights of the Old Republic II is Kreia's story told through the eyes of your character. Your character still went around doing heroic or evil things in Fallout 3's side quests, but he or she wasn't particularly mysterious (mostly thanks to Three-Dog), nor all that relevant to the main story of the game.

Yeah but the problem is that is also the original idea behind just about every other video game ever made, were this unique to Fallout then I wouldn't have minded as much but the cliched character with no past feels like a hollow scapegoating on behalf of the writers and ruins my perception of the protagonist outright.

I disagree with you with your perspective, if anything I think that adding Dad and his quest only enhanced my own PC both as a character and as part of the story. While Dad might have been the originator of the journey, and has his own significant part of the tale told, it is the Wanderer's destiny/choice to actually see it through. In the end I think that the tale always was the Wanderer's, even if it was originated by his/her father, it added a new layer of depth to the story and a personal touch which I found much more interesting than being selected at random for no particular reason by the Overseer as a 19 year old to go out with no training nor any knowledge of the wasteland in order to blindly seek a water chip.

In many books and films we often see children take up the quests begun by their parents and make it their own. In sci-fi you can find examples from the Dune saga to Star Wars. The mysterious stranger moniker isn't original nor in any way all that interesting to me, in fact quite the opposite; I find such characters hollow, paper thin shadows who only serve to do things in the story as opposed to being a part of it.

I found the Wanderer's journey very much relevant to the main story of the game. But that's just me

Double edged sword...This is the guy that makes the best RPG hero; He has no past, no family, no ties, no friends... Nothing to lose and no one to leave behind ~But its also not much of a role.

Notice that Baldur's Gate gives you a past, and a foster father, and a friend... but kills the father, cuts off your past (Candle Keep), and the friend comes with you. In Dungeon Siege (IRRC), everything you have gets killed or burned up ~so the Farmer becomes the man with no family, no ties, no friends... Nothing to lose and no one to leave behind.

That's what I mean, these characters have a past and people tied to it and make it much more interesting for me as a player to assume the role they portray. They have something at stake within the story and the adventure, they might nbe motivated by many factors from revenge, to desperation, to sacrifice, to loyalty, to love or friendship; this makes the protagonist infinately more interesting for me because I want to see his/her journey through all the more.

Addtionally, I love lore. Not just ingame lore about any specific world, but lore involving anything created for the game which only makes it seem more vibrant and rich. I want to know about the lore of the town where I grew up in, the lore behind the PC's family, the lore of the world, the history of events which shaped things to get to the way they are now, the friends and relationships the PC had before the journey and during it and how all of these things tie into the main arc, and sub-arcs, of the story.

They did this in both Fallout 1 & 2. You could find combat trainers that could help you ~unless you already knew more than they did.

I remember a few of those yeah. I think something along those lines, with restrictions as to not abuse and max out everything, might be a more immersive way to learn certain skills which would otherwise would be unrealistic within the starting areas of a vault or tribal village, using the games' starting points as an illustration.

What? How is non-existence stale? Do you actually even think about your character's parents when playing Fallout 1/2? I sure as heck don't, so I don't see how that could get stale. Including the character's parents just for the heck of it every single time would more likely to get stale than simply not including them. Dead I can agree with since there are way too many RPGs that start out with "village destroyed, parents murdered, vow to avenge deaths" introductions.

As I mentioned above very much yes!

I absolutely wonder about my PC's origins and the people tied to it. For me it can get stale because there is no sense of history, no sense of depth when characters are devoid of any past; they are just shells or ideas of what a character is supposed to represent but not a character proper.

I'm not suggesting including a full family history in every game, every time. But when it comes to RPGs where characters and story can be extended beyond the surface depth of run and gun Agent 23 before the alien clone army can detonate the nuke in Sector 7, lets just say that I hold character development here to much higher standards.

[Multi Multi]

I wasn't a huge fan of the way they thrust you into the story, with your Dad seeming (to me) little more than a macguffin to get you out and doing stuff. But I did like having that extra bit of background, and being able to get a sense of what it means to have grown up in a Vault - something you did miss out on in Fallout 1, I thought. For me, when I was RPing, I found that to be an interesting hook, and something I'd have liked to have seen possibly dealt with in the game, as well. Was starting out from this sheltered existence and how you adapt to survive in this world you were never properly prepared for. As I advanced in the game I found myself wearing less and less "Vault" items, and found this tied into my sense of identity. Putting on that leather armor and ditching the Armored Vault Suit, I felt a sense of shifting my identity.

Anyway, I've said this before, but I think a lot of the plot elements to Fallout 3 sounded better on paper than they worked out in implementation. I thought getting chased out of the Vault was a good way to get the player into the game in a way that made sense, but it still doesn't quite make sense to me exactly how they went about that. I get that my Dad running out of the Vault was a bad thing, but I still don't see how it goes from one guy getting out; to the guards going on a killing-spree being a good idea... As an example.

Going forward (in both NV and F4,) I'd like to see that background info supplied still. I just think a bit more work on looking for the potential plot-holes would have gone a long way. Heck, I even would have liked the option of spending more time in the Vault tracking down sideplots and getting to know these people a bit more. And I think that means they were fairly successful in that. I just think that while these guys might be good writers in their own right - this is also why such things as editors exist...

[Tessa Mullins]

Sounds like some of you missed (or discounts) the real story here. Here is a man so driven that he is willing to risk everything, and in the end, even you, the PC, for what sounds like a lunatic pipe dream. So how do you handle it? How do you handle him? How does all this affect you...the lies, the manic drive of teh father, the culture shock of being thrust into the outside world with little prep...and the father could have prepped beyond the BB gun.

I didn't find the story weak or stale or unidirectional. It turned out to be an excellent backdrop for roleplaying, and I think the father figure, and all of his human good/bad, pretty much set the tone of the game. The grand futile gesture, the tilting at windmills....just how far does one take a dream? Just how far will one go to change the world?

[daniel royle]

I didn't like it because its only good for one play through. The advantage of a nondescript past for the PC (and not being related (literally) to the main plot) means that every time you make a character they are like the Next one out the door drawn from the pool of inhabitants. The whole familiy pre history, the crib, the birth scene, ~Dad... pretty much ruined it for me from the very beginning.

** Odd exception... That is exactly the situation of Baldur's Gate ~and your PC is related to the plot... Except that Bhall had many children.

*** Even in Oblivion, each new PC was a nondescript prisoner in the city jail.

[Kira! :)))]

@Kjarista: I see what you mean, but I think a lot of that's just sort of inferred from his actions rather than very effectively illustrated. Through all of the beginning of the game, he's a doting and loving father. There's no foreshadowing or characterization that he's so driven in his work. This isn't a guy that doesn't have time for his offspring because he's too caught up in his work. My first impressions when he left was that it was rather abrupt. It seemed out of character from what I had been guided to believe about him. (And being voiced by Liam Neeson - the very embodiment of the ultimate father figure didn't help matters, either... )

I'm not saying it was crap. I just think it could have worked a lot better if perhaps there was another writer working on the script or whatever. Your father (in my experience) defines himself as a driven scientist who cares more about his work than his own son/ daughter; through his actions. (Leaving you alone in the Vault with a note, almost as an afterthought; abandoning you, then caring more about his mission than your own hardships, etc...) Contrasted by every time he appears and you get to have a conversation with him, my impression was again of a doting and loving father who cared for nothing less than your own well-being.

Sure, he's a compelling character (and that's not even getting into his little self-sacrificing obsession.) I just feel that, judging it on the same level I would a piece of literature - when you have a core concept like that, you push it as far as you can. "Hey kid, I don't have time for you now, Daddy's busy with important work," for example. If he's that sort of character, then it would seem "better" to me if they showed him from the onset having some very divided attentions concerning you vs his project. As opposed to through the whole intro, you are his only worry.

And that's something an editor or even if these segments had been given to another writer for a look-over, might have caught. Really, I think my biggest gripe about the central plot was simply that it felt to me like the work of one writer who was too close to his work and really could have used a second opinion in some areas. I mean, a professional author generally has to go through an editor to help clean up segments and separate the writer's ego from the finished product. The general idea if to make it a better work by having someone who could look at it from the outside...

[Laura Mclean]

Sounds like some of you missed (or discounts) the real story here. Here is a man so driven that he is willing to risk everything, and in the end, even you, the PC, for what sounds like a lunatic pipe dream. So how do you handle it? How do you handle him? How does all this affect you...the lies, the manic drive of teh father, the culture shock of being thrust into the outside world with little prep...and the father could have prepped beyond the BB gun.

That's the problem, the plot is built on the assumption that you (the player) give a damn about Qui Gon Dad.

[alyssa ALYSSA]

Anyway, I've said this before, but I think a lot of the plot elements to Fallout 3 sounded better on paper than they worked out in implementation. I thought getting chased out of the Vault was a good way to get the player into the game in a way that made sense, but it still doesn't quite make sense to me exactly how they went about that. I get that my Dad running out of the Vault was a bad thing, but I still don't see how it goes from one guy getting out; to the guards going on a killing-spree being a good idea... As an example.

Yeah...they definitely dropped the ball on the vault escape...the PC should have been able to talk, sneak, or fight his/her way out of the vault (and for the rest of the quests/situations in the game for that matter).

[JaNnatul Naimah]

Yeah...they definitely dropped the ball on the vault escape...the PC should have been able to talk, sneak, or fight his/her way out of the vault (and for the rest of the quests/situations in the game for that matter).

Well that is a different issue altogether, that is a design flaw of no implementing enough different choices to complete the same objective. I hardly think anyone would debate that Fallout 3 lacked this element of RPGs, on the contrary this is one of the game's biggest flaws as an RPG. But that isn't at least what many were discussing.

That's the problem, the plot is built on the assumption that you (the player) give a damn about Qui Gon Dad.

No more than the originals which are built around the assumption that you give a damn about a bunch of vault dwellers who are unrelated to you or a bunch of tribals, some of whom you are blood related to. :shrug:

EDIT

To me it didn't work that way at all; I saw Dad as someone who was constantly haunted by the failures of his past in spite of his attempts of trying to move past them by building a new life with his child in the only relative "safety" available in the wasteland. So once his child has reached maturity, Dad leaves with the intention of completing the dream he had envisioned as a young man with his wife and Li, and the solace he finds is that his child is now safe in the confines of the vault as far as he knows. It is for this reason that Dad can move on to try to finish the quest he had begun so many years before and I think it is also the reason why Dad is surprised to find the Wanderer outside of the Vault, because as far as he knew he would be taking the risk of completing his work himself; whether he succeeded or failed to make a difference in the wasteland, he was at least comforted that his child would be safe in the vault either way.

I didn't like it because its only good for one play through. The advantage of a nondescript past for the PC (and not being related (literally) to the main plot) means that every time you make a character they are like the Next one out the door drawn from the pool of inhabitants. The whole familiy pre history, the crib, the birth scene, ~Dad... pretty much ruined it for me from the very beginning.

** Odd exception... That is exactly the situation of Baldur's Gate ~and your PC is related to the plot... Except that Bhall had many children.

*** Even in Oblivion, each new PC was a nondescript prisoner in the city jail.

Well that's precisely what made it better for me and made it more memorable. :hehe:

I hated the intro of the PCs in TES series, they were way too conveniently poised to be the saviors of the world for no reason at all; save for Morrowind's PC who was Nerevar reincarnated.

Just another faceless anybody coming from the vault makes me not care about the character at all because he is a nobody, just some random guy who inexplicably was chosen/forced for no reason whatsoever to start the journey other than to move the plot forward and just start the game.

I think New Vegas should take a lesson from games such as Baldur's, NWN 2 and Mass Effect (And possibly Dragon Age); these games didn't tie the PC's background into the man storyline but did make it part of the game via sub-quests, conversations, and npcs. I think it makes the PC more believable as a character to have a past, to have a history and have that reflected ingame instead of being a blank slate of collected skills and following the main quest just for the hell of it because he/she is just shoved out a door or is at the right place/right time...or wrong place/wrong time pending circusmtances

[Yung Prince]

Just another faceless anybody coming from the vault makes me not care about the character at all because he is a nobody, just some random guy who inexplicably was chosen/forced for no reason whatsoever to start the journey other than to move the plot forward and just start the game.

For me that just makes anything possible you want to have happen in his backstory happen. It lets you build from scratch.

[Tyrone Haywood]

Yeah...they definitely dropped the ball on the vault escape...the PC should have been able to talk, sneak, or fight his/her way out of the vault (and for the rest of the quests/situations in the game for that matter).

Actually...

To give credit where it's due, I thought it was by and large a good case of level design in that stage of the game. You could certainly decide whether or not you wanted to fight or sneak your way out of the Vault (sneaking being perhaps more effective in that level than in many other areas of the game; and is even cleverly set up in a way that would often make it explicit which routes would best suit sneaking around the enemies.) And actually a fairly decent amount of dialogue was possible, if you wanted to go that route. I certainly think that sometimes it doesn't make sense for you to talk your way out of every situation, but you can do a lot of with some creative dialogue during your escape.

Probably helps that it was basically an extended tutorial level designed to introduce you to the concepts and possible routes through the game (fighting, stealth, and speech, etc...) So multiple routes probably got a bit more attention at that stage than some of the later sidequests and such.

As far as the whole having an explicit background for the PC: I'm actually a fan of that. (I do have a real preference towards Bioware's games for trying to walk a fine line between giving players a choice of their backgrounds, and tying those choices into the game in meaningful ways.) I actually usually only ever intend to play most RPGs through the one time. I don't usually factor replayability into what RPGs I like. I enjoy simply knowing that I have choices that are meaningful in a game - I personally don't particularly need to know how each and every permutation is going to play out. My most, well, "immersive" and memorable videogame experience remains the first Knights of the Old Republic. I've only ever played it once, beginning to end, and it left me satisfied enough that I didn't care to see what other ways the story could play out. Because that playthrough was "my" story. It's very personal to me, the whole of my experiences in that game.

So having a sort of "blank" PC I could see perhaps making it more accessible for multiple replays (and I've certainly gone back through F1 and F2 a number of times over the years - mostly after enough time has passed that I don't have the entire game basically memorized.) But the most satisfying RPGs are the ones that I never play more than the one time. (Personally, because otherwise I find the dramatic effect gets watered down - like watching the same movie five different times, only each time done by different directors - eventually it becomes less about the story of my character, and more about the permutations...)

And I don't mind that giving the PC a firm background limits my "roleplaying" options. I RP in my playthroughs with these games, but I never start out with a fully-fleshed idea of my character. I've never had a problem that my character in Fallout 3 is always going to be someone from the Vault with an absentee father, because by that point I'd never have tried to come up with something that would contradict that. I just prefer to fill in the details as the game progresses (sort of like how in a movie, the character is fleshed out through the course of the film, rather - usually - a lengthy expositional piece at the beginning that describes the entire character.)

Probably worth noting that most of the above are just my own personal gameplay preferences, and not an attempt to say that's the only "right" way to play an RPG. Just to say that I actually enjoy having that pre-set background for the PC to go through.

[Jessie]

For me that just makes anything possible you want to have happen in his backstory happen. It lets you build from scratch.

It does allow that, but it never brings it forward in the game. In the end it does not tie the PC down in those around him and (in case of FO1) they do not acknowledge this past.
To each his own I guess, but a bit of drama really helps in making characters and the PC compelling.

[Ricky Meehan]

I didn't like it because its only good for one play through. The advantage of a nondescript past for the PC (and not being related (literally) to the main plot) means that every time you make a character they are like the Next one out the door drawn from the pool of inhabitants. The whole familiy pre history, the crib, the birth scene, ~Dad... pretty much ruined it for me from the very beginning.

** Odd exception... That is exactly the situation of Baldur's Gate ~and your PC is related to the plot... Except that Bhall had many children.

*** Even in Oblivion, each new PC was a nondescript prisoner in the city jail.

It was in fact surprising & refreshing to see Bethesda drop the "Nameless Hero" (to use a Gothic term) shtick and give the player character some background for once.

The only previous time they did something like this was with Cyrus in Redguard... one could even draw parallels with the FO3 story (find sister <> find daddy).

[Cash n Class]

Obsidian really should throw the fans a bone, hell I'd be happy with just one teaser pic... Hopefully they'll start the PR once AP is out.

Problem there is no-one really seems to know when AP will come out anymore.

For you guys wondering when we will see some new info, I think we wont see anything until E3 2010.

I think either E3 or after GOTY comes out, maybe, maybe there will be something included in GOTY.

I should think that exceedingly rare ammo would be the most unpopular. People like to shoot things. A ammo scarcity slider might work.

A slider would be strange, but it could work and add to replayability. Play like fallout rambo one time, then mad max with no ammo one time.

I'm for rare ammo, crates & crates of ammo just simply wouldn't be there for a month, much less 250 years; you can have locations that have crates of ammo, but those locations should have remained hidden, or were well defended by obstacles, security droids, and or other wastlanders that consider it theirs. It is the hallmark of the amateur DM/GM to fill a room with outrageous treasure, and it always leads to a devaluation of goods... "Oh... another minigun and flamer and rocket launcher in this crate too..." :banghead:.

You are right though... People like to shoot stuff, and Fallout was never a game for those kind of people; Making it one ruins it for the rest of us.
In Mad Max, he had no bullets, and had to bluff a lot ~then found some old shells that maybe wouldn't work when he needed them, but were too scarce to test out on anything but a real threat. ~Fallout 3 is a bit more like a post apocalyptic Rambo gun-fest, than anything like mad max was. I really ~REALLY hope that New Vegas plays more like an RPG than Fallout 3, and with more importance placed on setting, and your character ~and other characters than maintaining a paced FPS experience with ample ammo for all situations.
Its a Post apoc setting where everyone is making their own rounds unless very lucky, or very wealthy ~and neither should be the player character when starting out. A PC should start with minimal rounds if any, and run out if careless, having to resort to sticks & stones until able to find a knife or a gun, or more rounds to fit the gun she has (and the gun she has might be an antique Mauser).

Make stuff rare and expensive, and its all the more fun when you finally get one that works, and has shots to spare.
(same with high-tech stimpaks and radiation drugs... These things should be military only unless stolen, command insane prices; and perhaps even be confiscated by those that can get away with it).

One thing that could work with this is more emphasis on repair and schematics. More created weapons and even created ammo. IMO, most of the created weapons in FO3 were garbage. Unless you knew where to get schematics early, by the time you built say, the railgun or the rock-it launcher, you had way better equipment. Combine it with the alchemy skill in obsidian and have the PC scrounging in the wasteland to make themself poultices and dressings and such. If you could create like a pipe gun, flintlock type pistol early, and the farther you made it, the more and better schematics you found, including ammo. This would balance the game, as early on, you might prefer melee unless a powerful enemy is there, maybe that enemy has a good weapon you can study to improve yours or even add another schematic. Especially if they added an old school type rest/sleep/combined with study, where you can be interrupted by enemies. This is probably taking a much too diverse direction to be in NEW Vegas though. I feel like NV will be more of a copy paste game, engine-wise. With Avellone type character/choice heavy plot.

But wouldn't that potentially result in a too sudden dramatic drop in difficulty - thus destroying the balance?
(I already experienced such an annoying difficulty drop in FO2 when I got my first gun, after many hours of struggling to keep my character alive with a spear.)

How about this... Another thing that I think the Witcher got right:
What if the character could carry only a very small number of weapons?

This could aslo help balancing, especially if combined with weighted ammo.

http://defonten.az/New_Reno_1920.jpg

looks awesome

I would have to say, "that's too bad... Your PC became a big-gun rocket & grenade specialist before you ever saw an energy rifle to study or learn to be good with... That's just tough".

No amount of debate can convince me that crafting a game so you can "recover" from previous commitments is a good thing; As I see it, it is the game industry's equivalent of, "Everyone at the softball game gets a trophy, and no one goes home a loser". This kind of insanity goes counter to biological brain development and fosters a fantasy world in one's real life.

If I make a character in a game that finds a sniper rifle and commits to mastering it completely, and then finds an energy weapon and can't use it... that makes sense and I'd not have it any other way ~If the guns were reversed, he'd be an expert in laser weapons that are not affected by wind speed at 500 yards (and not be very good with a sniper's rifle) :shrug: ~this is normal no?

Fallout let the player tag whatever they wanted and within context it was plausible that the PC could know these skills before hand; Its not plausible in FO3, and a change in the mechanics might have been warranted if it worked smooth and showed good results.

In FO:NV if the PC again has a fully defined past, this mechanic again won't make reasonable sense; Though if you start in a vault and spend an hour or two defining your PC, then perhaps something like visiting the vault archives (library) could allow the PC to unlock certain skills (or discover new skills entirely).

Nothing about your character in FO3 is predefined other than the fact you were born and made it to age 19 before your father left the vault. Oh and you had a birthday party at age 10. Quite the stretch there! You even get to tailor your backstory when you take the GOAT. If you opt to skip the test you can divulge what type of person you are and get appropriate results.

There's a lot of things that could be done to have it make more sense, but since it's already engraved in stone for some people it's too late. Any deviation from the established system would only herald a massive welling of tears. FO3's minor changes, such as not getting 2 points for tag skills, already create enough strife in some peoples' lives as is.

I wouldn't be opposed to more of a 'skill tree' type system that lets you raise a general marksman ability that represents aiming and general gun use, then later you can specialize in ballistic or energy weapons. You'd still be fairly competent with either with a high general skill, but specializing would bring benefits and unlock more abilities/perks.

But that would probably result in a jihad on Bethesda's corporate office.

I think that FO3 changed things from the original FO games, that people should be more receptive to change now. I personally would not have minded a oblivion type leveling system (for the pc, not scaled enemies) where what you do and use determines what your skills are. It seems more real to me. Combined with something like what Dragon Age is doing. I really like the idea of origins. And I think it could fit well in the FO-verse. There could be a Vault origin, a tribal, a townie, a BOS/Enclave (even though theyre overdone), hell maybe even a raider origin, and then somehow they all tie into some over arching plot. This would explain things, like a tribal origin would be more melee invested, vs. a BOC/enclave origin more focused on energy, with others being inbetween. Again, I feel that this may be too much to hope for from NV however. Maybe FO4 down the road.

[trisha punch]

...where what you do and use determines what your skills are. It seems more real to me...

This is one thing I think Bethesda got absolutely right. It was new and different even back when they released Arena, and I've long been a fan of the idea you become a better thief by sneaking and stealing rather than killing, which is how most RPGs give you experience.

Yeah, it bugs power gamers and leads to people taking advantage of the game mechanics (repeatedly casting 1 point fireballs), but if you play the game the way it's intended, I think it usually works out much better. I'd like it implemented, at least a little, in New Vegas, but I doubt it will be.

[KRistina Karlsson]

It does allow that, but it never brings it forward in the game. In the end it does not tie the PC down in those around him and (in case of FO1) they do not acknowledge this past.
To each his own I guess, but a bit of drama really helps in making characters and the PC compelling.

See but it doesn't have too. You past is in the past as they say. Your playing in the "now" the game world doesn't know the past you.

[Trevi]

It was in fact surprising & refreshing to see Bethesda drop the "Nameless Hero" (to use a Gothic term) shtick and give the player character some background for once.

The only previous time they did something like this was with Cyrus in Redguard... one could even draw parallels with the FO3 story (find sister <> find daddy).

Game and Story are at odds; The best games have no story at all, and the best stories are books, not games... An RPG is the odd man in that its a game that relies on a story; But the more you push the story aspect the less of a game it is (and vice-versa). The "Nameless hero" is a good game mechanic, it works well in the long-term (though he doesn't actually need to be nameless).

In Oblivion , you can be anyone in that cell [from innocent man to hardened murderer] ~and different every time you play; It might have been refreshing to instead have been the emperor's stable boy, or a special agent of the crown... but ~Every time you play!?

Game play boils down to mechanics ~always. Story only gives an incentive to play (IE. The town is being attacked! ~defend the town...) simple and effective, the more story you have, the less game you have; At the extreme ends, its either Chess or a movie. Chess you can play for years, but you can only watch a movie so many times before you need a long break; Games that are more movie (story) than game get stale after a very short while (even if the story is superb).

One thing that could work with this is more emphasis on repair and schematics. More created weapons and even created ammo. IMO, most of the created weapons in FO3 were garbage. Unless you knew where to get schematics early, by the time you built say, the railgun or the rock-it launcher, you had way better equipment. Combine it with the alchemy skill in obsidian and have the PC scrounging in the wasteland to make themself poultices and dressings and such. If you could create like a pipe gun, flintlock type pistol early, and the farther you made it, the more and better schematics you found, including ammo. This would balance the game, as early on, you might prefer melee unless a powerful enemy is there, maybe that enemy has a good weapon you can study to improve yours or even add another schematic. Especially if they added an old school type rest/sleep/combined with study, where you can be interrupted by enemies.

I would prefer abandoning the Schematic approach entirely, for a well designed crafting interface in it's place, that allows game objects to be used in several combination to produce unique equipment. Arx Fatalis has spell casting runes that must be strung together for specific spells, but can be altered by the player to achieve undocumented ones; Lands of Lore 2 went further and allowed the player to combine just about anything in his inventory ~with a good chance at producing trash. ; Witcher's Alchemy system seems pretty good (as was Arx Fatalis'). These games add additional [active] options in play beyond combat & quest dialogs. With Fallout 4 (or even NV), it be nice to be able to pick up a plank, and some nails, and combine them for a nail board; Or combine http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/1203-BLicetongs.jpg and a http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/93936965.jpg for a http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/everyday_life/control/1750-1820/TL.0151/.

I think that FO3 changed things from the original FO games, that people should be more receptive to change now.

I disagree though. I don't mind them having 32 bit color and 3d, but I liked the games for the way they were ~and that's the only reason I'd buy a sequel. If Dawn of War 2 had been a futuristic http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/wars-and-warriors-joan-of-arc Clone, I'd have not accepted the change.

FO3 does not play like Fallout or Fallout 2 ~Diablo 3 however looks to be a greatly enhanced Diablo sequel that sticks to form while incorporating modern 3d, and effects.

IMO it is the actual game of a series that is defining ~not merely the setting; There are a dozen Warhammer and 40k games (all in the same setting), are they all bona fide sequels of one another?

[Andrew Lang]

This is one thing I think Bethesda got absolutely right. It was new and different even back when they released Arena, and I've long been a fan of the idea you become a better thief by sneaking and stealing rather than killing, which is how most RPGs give you experience.

The Magic Candle (1989) and Darklands (1992) both had learn by doing systems. No slam against Arena, but people often forget about TMC and Darklands.

[Javaun Thompson]

XP reward systems can do the same things. You would get XP for successfully sneaking past people and lockpicking and pickpocketing. Like you do in most D&D games. Or in games like torrment you can gain XP for even watching other thiefs fail/succeed.

[teeny]

The Magic Candle (1989) and Darklands (1992) both had learn by doing systems. No slam against Arena, but people often forget about TMC and Darklands.

I don't...
I still have the Darklands floppies.

I also incessantly hopped my way through Oblivion, and eventually had an un modded PC that could hop on to the roofs in the Temple district, or over the wall of the Arena, some castles, and any city (including the outer walls of Tameriel ~Temple district). ~And sadly I found nothing up there of interest (except that the game doesn't recognize when you've hopped a wall to the outside... and it keeps the minimal textures for the landscape until you actually leave town by the gate).

*Once though, a guard hopped from the ground onto a roof to arrest my PC for sniping with the bow. You can let off a shot from atop the city wall, then hide before it hits, and STILL be accused of assault.

** No game is perfect though.

[Adam Porter]

This is one thing I think Bethesda got absolutely right. It was new and different even back when they released Arena, and I've long been a fan of the idea you become a better thief by sneaking and stealing rather than killing, which is how most RPGs give you experience.

... Except that system wasn't implemented until Daggerfall. Arena didn't even have skills, it only had attributes.

Yeah, it bugs power gamers and leads to people taking advantage of the game mechanics (repeatedly casting 1 point fireballs), but if you play the game the way it's intended, I think it usually works out much better. I'd like it implemented, at least a little, in New Vegas, but I doubt it will be.

Don't you think Fallout is enough of a TES clone as is? You want them to kill what little is left of Fallout's gameplay mechanics?

If Dawn of War 2 had been a futuristic Joan of Arc Clone, I'd have not accepted the change.

Dawn of War II is an interesting example. All Relic really did was remove features from the original game and shove it into a new engine, and as such it felt like a step back rather than a step forward even if you hate base building and real RTS games. DoW 2 didn't change as much as Fallout 3, but it changed enough for me to go back to playing the original game exclusively. Huge disappointment there.

[kristy dunn]

Okay, my bad. The skill system in Arena was new to me and, I guess, to ONLY me!

[Anthony Diaz]

Okay, my bad. The skill system in Arena was new to me and, I guess, to ONLY me!

There was no skill system in Arena though; it was just attributes and those were definitely not new to the genre.

[Ezekiel Macallister]

Betrayal at Krondor had the learn by doing system as well, and came out in 1992 (?). This game is perhaps the perfect combination of great mechanics & combat, open world and an engrossing, incredibly complex storyline (no surprise, written by Raymond Feist himself --- an avid video gamer fan at the time).

[Margarita Diaz]

Dawn of War II is an interesting example. All Relic really did was remove features from the original game and shove it into a new engine, and as such it felt like a step back rather than a step forward even if you hate base building and real RTS games. DoW 2 didn't change as much as Fallout 3, but it changed enough for me to go back to playing the original game exclusively. Huge disappointment there.

So I've heard. I still play Dawn of War 1 (and I actually like the Dark Crusade changes). I haven't bought Dawn of War 2 yet, but was really [REALLY!] hyped about it when I saw the conceptual gameplay ~Too bad that concept never made it into the finished game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzVlpUf7e5w