Bethesda to host their own conference at E3 for the first time

[Th3MaN1]

Well, a dating sim is a really bad example, because let me say this thing again, I NEVER SAID FALLOUT SHOULD NOT have combat. I just said that Fallout is not the game that's about shooting.

 

 

And how exactly should I have played it? Though more importantly, what exactly entitles you to tell me how I should and should not have played it?

 

 

Nothing. And I don't care how you play a game, but something you have not used correctly is not going to give you the maximum amount of enjoyment that it potentially could.

 

You may have fun going around shooting things, even I do, because it's fun. But I get the most enjoyment out of the exploration, the huge amount of side-quests, and by finding new stuff. Because that's what the game is about.

 

agree that combat mechanics in Fallout should be a little more slow paced / tedious / realistic / whatever.

 

I said the same f*cking thing a few posts before.

 

And I'm defending V.A.T.S because it's a part of Fallout, just like S.P.E.C.I.A.L, and G.O.A.T, and the super-mutants, and whatnot.

 

Don't like V.A.T.S? Don't use it. But don't say it shouldn't be there (reffering to lazy here), because that's like saying GTA shouldn't have stealing cars anyone, because you could just buy them.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[K^2]

He, he. I know exactly what their next game is, but I'm not telling. (NDAs, etc.)

[Eurotrash]

Well, a dating sim is a really bad example, because let me say this thing again, I NEVER SAID FALLOUT SHOULD NOT have combat. I just said that Fallout is not the game that's about shooting.

 

Yes and I'm saying you're wrong. Combat is the most important element, otherwise it would be just a dating sim. If you know any other type of RPG that doesn't feature combat I'd love to hear it.

 

TIP: There is none, because combat is crucial to the RPG formula.

 

Nothing. And I don't care how you play a game, but something you have not used correctly is not going to give you the maximum amount of enjoyment that it potentially could.

 

How about you let me decide that? Just because that's how it works for you doesn't mean it is so for everybody,Christ.

 

You may have fun going around shooting things, even I do, because it's fun. But I get the most enjoyment out of the exploration, the huge amount of side-quests, and by finding new stuff. Because that's what the game is about.

 

And about shooting things. Combat was in the game from the start, same as exploration and all the other crap. But if you really want to argue on which element is more important, think of it this way:

 

If you had no exploration, could you still shoot things? Yes, you could. Game would be linear as hell but you could still shoot things.

But if you had no combat, would you be able to explore? I'd argue that you couldn't. You'd be dead the moment you set foot in the wasteland because you'd be unable to fight back against everything that's out there.

 

I said the same f*cking thing a few posts before.

 

Yeah but you also said... or were implying rather, that if Fallout ever got any proper combat mechanics it would ruin the series. With that I don't agree, even if it featured Call of Duty style combat I think it would still be an improvement, because that's just how much live-mode combat sucks in Fallout at the moment.

 

And I'm defending V.A.T.S because it's a part of Fallout, just like S.P.E.C.I.A.L, and G.O.A.T, and the super-mutants, and whatnot.

 

VATS didn't even exist in Fallout 1 & 2. I think you just set yourself up here m8

 

Plenty of features from Fallout 1 & 2 that were "part of the game" were removed. No doubt Fallout 4 will lose some as well, that's how gaming evolution works, deal with it.

 

Don't like V.A.T.S? Don't use it. But don't say it shouldn't be there (reffering to lazy here), because that's like saying GTA shouldn't have stealing cars anyone, because you could just buy them.

 

That's not really a fair comparison. Stealing cars is core to GTA's gameplay, it's in the title FFS. VATS wasn't even in Fallout from the beginning.

 

But anyway, I don't think VATS should be removed. But I do think that it was implemented just as a substitute for poor combat mechanics, and those mechanics need to be improved VATS or no VATS.

 

If you don't like VATS I don't really see how you could not use it, since the live-mode combat is so bad. Stealth maybe but that only works well at high levels.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Eurotrash

[Coin]

 

VATS didn't even exist in Fallout 1 & 2. I think you just set yourself up here m8

 

Plenty of features from Fallout 1 & 2 that were "part of the game" were removed. No doubt Fallout 4 will lose some as well, that's how gaming evolution works, deal with it.

 

 

VATS may not have existed in Fallout 1 & 2 but it's inclusion was inspired by the way combat operated in those games.

 

Anyway, this discussion seems to be two pretty distinct camps. One, that wants an RPG (which Fallout always has been) ergo the character's skills determines their effectiveness and others want more of an Action Adventure game, where player skill is more prevalent in outcomes (particularly combat).

 

Those in this thread that have been advocating gun mechnic improvements alongside examples of games they'd like to see emulated in this regard fall into the latter camp.

 

I'm not opposed to improved mechanics, but it needs to be done with that RPG feel in mind IMO.

[K^2]

I don't see a problem. VATS was specifically designed to have both. Just because FO3 gun mechanics sucked, doesn't mean it is VATS' fault. You can have good gun combat and STILL have VATS for people who like RPG-style combat.

[Coin]

I don't see a problem. VATS was specifically designed to have both. Just because FO3 gun mechanics sucked, doesn't mean it is VATS' fault. You can have good gun combat and STILL have VATS for people who like RPG-style combat.

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, it would be problematic in terms of resources. Developing a more FPS/TPS shooting mechanic outside alongside keeping or improving the more RPG, character driven-style combat mechanic. It's not something that's really going to get the okay early on at a big studio. Again, I could simply be misunderstanding what you're suggesting here.

 

If I were a betting man anyway, I'd suspect that they will take a lot of cues from how they handled combat and combat related skills in Skyrim. Some people hated it, others loved it. Going that direction does make one wonder what the future of SPECIAL is though.

[Th3MaN1]

VATS didn't even exist in Fallout 1 & 2. I think you just set yourself up here m8

 

And that's the point where I will stop arguing, considering you have no idea what you're talking about. So I think you set yourself up there... m8.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[Eurotrash]

I don't see a problem. VATS was specifically designed to have both. Just because FO3 gun mechanics sucked, doesn't mean it is VATS' fault. You can have good gun combat and STILL have VATS for people who like RPG-style combat.

 

Agreed! But currently Fallout has only the later.

 

 

VATS didn't even exist in Fallout 1 & 2. I think you just set yourself up here m8

 

And that's the point where I will stop arguing, considering you have no idea what you're talking about. So I think you set yourself up there... m8.

I think you don't. That's not VATS, dummy.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Eurotrash

[Th3MaN1]

Half your username suits your words perfectly. The common thing between you and a sewer is that you both are full of sh*t.

 

Just because it doesn't have a name in the first 2 games, it's the same f*cking thing. Calling a Ferrari a car still means it's a Ferrari.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[sivispacem]

For all intents and purposes, VATS performs the same role as Aimed Shot in F1 and 2. It's supposed to be a throw-back to the older turn-based system. I'll concede that the shooting mechanics in vanilla F3 were terrible, and in NV were only marginally better by virtue of having proper iron sights (or at least things passing for proper iron sights) but thank f*ck for mods to rectify that. I see no reason why the two can't coexist; in my heavily modified NV instance, with various tweaks to gunplay mechanics drawn from Project Nevada etc, I use both. In fact my biggest gripe with Wasteland 2 was the lack of an aimed shot facility.

[Eurotrash]

Half your username suits your words perfectly. The common thing between you and a sewer is that you both are full of sh*t.

 

For the record, up to this point I actually enjoyed our argument, you've made some points, I've made some. To be honest the only reason I even bothered was cause I thought you were among the more intelligent individuals around here and wouldn't flip out and start throwing around personal attacks that make no sense. Well, if what you really want is to prove me wrong, congrats, you have.

 

By the way, next time you go on a nerd rage, be a little more creative. I chose this nickname precisely because it helps me identify rangers easily, they always go for the nickname or the avatar.

 

Just because it doesn't have a name in the first 2 games, it's the same f*cking thing. Calling a Ferrari a car still means it's a Ferrari.

 

 

 

[Mista J]

Ugh, rangers?

[Th3MaN1]

I'm sorry, but I cannot enjoy an argument when you clearly have the evidence in front of you, and you still fail to acknowledge it. Just like sivispacem said, it's called aimed-shot in Fallout 1 and 2, but it functions exactly as V.A.T.S.

 

I rest my case.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[K^2]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, it would be problematic in terms of resources. Developing a more FPS/TPS shooting mechanic outside alongside keeping or improving the more RPG, character driven-style combat mechanic. It's not something that's really going to get the okay early on at a big studio. Again, I could simply be misunderstanding what you're suggesting here.

Agreed. But once you decided on a feature, you should make sure you have resources to have it done right. It would not be a wrong decision for Bethesda to forcus on free shooting or RPG-like system only in the next game if they don't think they have resources to make both work well in parallel via VATS-equievalent. It will probably result in a lot of complaints from the fans, but it'd be better than doing both poorly.

 

On the other hand, if they do decide to go for both, they should dedicate the necessary resources. This isn't something that should be left in half-assed state, which is what happened in FO3. I really hope Bethesda has learned from that. (Although, they keep baffling me with some of their design decisions.)

 

I won't speak for Bethesda, but the way this works in most studios is that for design decisions like this, there would be a meeting early on, comprised of who-is-who in the design team, and at least leads of every other team in the company. They mull over various ways to approach it, relevant time constraints, and resources it would take. They then come up with an implementation plan, which would include a number of milestones. One of the key steps in that is deciding on an early prototype date. Now, FO3's VATS and shooting system looks to me like what the prototype should have been. That's typically going to be 1-3 months into development cycle. This leads up to the next meeting, where it is decided if the plan is still good, if some adjustments to schedule and work allocation are needed, or if the whole thing needs to be dropped now. The feature then goes through a number of additional tests and milestones to make sure it's coming along, and finally turns into a polished game system.

 

Not every feature of the game is going to get that much love, far from it, but something as central as combat mechanics ought to. And I have no idea where this went horribly wrong for FO3. I'm sure Bethesda doesn't just throw crap together to see what sticks. They are infamous for pools of glitches, but their games are, generally, mostly-finished working products. Maybe VATS happened relatively late in the development because something else went belly up. But it seriously feels like a prototype of a system, rather than finished product.

[Th3MaN1]

Yes but then again, maybe from their perspective, it was good enough.

 

I've never had major problems with it, considering that RPG elements play a role in the shooting as well. You may have the perfect accuracy with the mouse, but no matter if you fire in short bursts or not, the bullet will not connect, just because your skills are not high enough, or maybe just because you have been unlucky.

[hvcciookay]

I only used VATS to spot enemies too far out for me to see or and shoot, so everyone's point is invalid.

Edited February 24, 2015 by hvcciookay

[K^2]

Yes but then again, maybe from their perspective, it was good enough.

There is no such thing in game design as "good enough" from developer's perspective. It's just not how things are done in the industry. Every once in a while, you get an individual with enough weight to dictate design process, and sometimes they are right. More often they cause project to fail so bad, it takes the company down with it. See Daikatana for the worst example of this. In companies of Bethesda's caliber, this is an exception, rather than the rule.

 

As a rule, design of any system must address desires of the demographic. Quite frequently, ones they cannot properly express. This is the reason for extensive development process. This is the reason for having a prototype. Your argument is that FPS players were not the demographic. Potentially, a valid point. They don't have to be part of FO demographic. They never were before FO3. But then why have free-shooting at all? If you are targeting RPG demographic, making this purely a roll-of-the-dice game is the right call. Having first person shooting is unnecessary. And clearly, some work did go into making it work. If you aren't going after a demographic with it, it's wasted resources.

 

Bethesda does appear to have a contingent of, "Lets just bolt it on," developers. It's the only way I can explain many of the TESO's design choices. But this isn't proper design. With this attitude, you are creating arguments within this community (like this one), and you fail to fully satisfy any one demographic. This would be a minor faux pa, which can be written off as some designer's whimsy, on a lot of things. But on something as central as combat, Bethesda really should have known better. I'm betting they did. I'm betting something went wrong late in development with their original vision for how it should all work. Probably something that didn't survive encounter with early QA sessions.

 

Next time I manage to corner a dev from Bethesda, I'll try to find out what really happened there.

[Th3MaN1]

as far as the combat goes, I think I have the right to expect something better from them compared to mosy products we have nowadays.

 

On another note, it cannot be denied that a lot of pressure was on them whrn creating Fallout 3. Noy only did they have to appeal to long time fans, but they aldo had to come up with new mechanics and concepts, all while following an example set by the previous games.

 

I was previously trying to make the point of how V.A.T.S was also present in the first two games, albeit with a different name. It was pretty much the same thing, but Bethesda changed a name and it was already seen as a new mechanic.

 

I think that proves there was pressure on them. And then there's the transition from an isometric, turn based gameplay to what can possibly be called a new genre.

 

From my perspective, the game was doomed to fail in some way, considering the sheer pressure , and the scope of the game also a factor in this.

 

It's clear that my knowledge in this department compared to yours is nothing, but I believe that they didn't know entirely what they were doing regarding some design choices.

[K^2]

These could very well have been factors. Maybe even crucial ones. All I'm saying is that I don't think VATS was plan A there. At least, not the way it's used with free-shooting. Maybe it was meant to be all VATS-based combat, that triggered automatically, or something. And maybe they failed to make that work, so they had to fall back on free-shooting with player-activated VATS, or something along these lines. I'm totally just guessing on that. All that I can say firmly from my experience is that companies of Bethesda's caliber do not leave decisions like this to the end, and they don't make such a mess of systems they develop from the start. The only thing that makes sense is a late switch in mechanics.

 

I've actually played very little of FO2 very long time ago, and haven't played the first one at all. Probably something I should rectify eventually. But I remember actual combat being entirely turn based, is that right? In which case, the key change in mechanics between FO2 and FO3 is triggering VATS with a key press. It's an almost trivial change in retrospect, but I can see how this might not have been the first idea Bethesda came up with for combat.

[Eurotrash]

Yes but then again, maybe from their perspective, it was good enough.

 

I've never had major problems with it, considering that RPG elements play a role in the shooting as well. You may have the perfect accuracy with the mouse, but no matter if you fire in short bursts or not, the bullet will not connect, just because your skills are not high enough, or maybe just because you have been unlucky.

 

Which is beyond retarded, RPG or not.

[K^2]

Which is beyond retarded, RPG or not.

Only because it was sh*t design. Nobody complained about it in Deus Ex. But that's because Deus Ex gave you a reticle on the screen which represented your actual bullet spread. You could improve it by staying still and steadying the shot, but you could also reduce spread with weapon upgrades or spending points in corresponding skills.

 

It's still a dice roll, ultimately, but it's one that's presented to the player up front, with clear way to improve your odds.

 

When you have a fixed reticle, and an animation showing you hitting dead center, but then it may or may not do damage, yeah, that's totally retarded. But it's exactly the same mechanic underneath. So it's just a crap design.

[Th3MaN1]

Which is beyond retarded, RPG or not.

That's where I can agree with you.

 

Fallout 3 was far from having good shooting mechanics, and the RPG part played a role in this, but only a minor one. To copy K^2, it was crappy design.

 

But most of these problems are fixed in New Vegas. Guns that have recoil in Iron Sights do shot where they are pointed, but there are still problems there.

 

To reference the start of this clusterf*ck, iNero suggest something more similar to the latest Wolfenstein.

 

But in my humble opinion, that's not something that should be in Fallout.

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by Th3MaN1

[Eurotrash]

 

Which is beyond retarded, RPG or not.

Only because it was sh*t design. Nobody complained about it in Deus Ex. But that's because Deus Ex gave you a reticle on the screen which represented your actual bullet spread. You could improve it by staying still and steadying the shot, but you could also reduce spread with weapon upgrades or spending points in corresponding skills.

It's still a dice roll, ultimately, but it's one that's presented to the player up front, with clear way to improve your odds.

When you have a fixed reticle, and an animation showing you hitting dead center, but then it may or may not do damage, yeah, that's totally retarded. But it's exactly the same mechanic underneath. So it's just a crap design.

 

It was stupid in Deus Ex as well, and they realized that eventually, with Deus Ex Human Revolution.

 

 

Which is beyond retarded, RPG or not.

That's where I can agree with you.

 

Fallout 3 was far from having good shooting mechanics, and the RPG part played a role in this, but only a minor one. To copy K^2, it was crappy design.

 

But most of these problems are fixed in New Vegas. Guns that have recoil in Iron Sights do shot where they are pointed, but there are still problems there.

 

Lucky? I've actually found that to be worse in New Vegas. In Fallout 3 I've never actually missed a point blank shot ,just easy shots in general, but in New Vegas that happens on the regular basis. Ghost bullets.

[K^2]

It was stupid in Deus Ex as well, and they realized that eventually, with Deus Ex Human Revolution.

First of all, "they"? HR was made by completely different people. And it's been made as a straight up shooter, without any RPG elements. Even with that in mind, it is riddled with bad design choices, which did not reflect well on the company. Their next game was Theif 4, which became a total flop, and I doubt we'll see another major game from them.

 

In contrast, Deus Ex was a genuine FPS/RPG, and for all its flaws, that part of the game worked. Worked well enough to practically spawn a genre. And anyone who actually spent time playing the game and learning the system came to appreciate it. Now, if you just went in and tried to play it like it was Doom, you got killed. Fast. And that caused a lot of players to throw a child's tantrum and stop playing. If you're one of these people, then move along. The game isn't for you. And neither is Fallout, probably. So you really ought not complain that it doesn't play the way you want it to. Go play Halo, mor Modern Warefare, or something.

[Eurotrash]

 

It was stupid in Deus Ex as well, and they realized that eventually, with Deus Ex Human Revolution.

First of all, "they"? HR was made by completely different people. And it's been made as a straight up shooter, without any RPG elements. Even with that in mind, it is riddled with bad design choices, which did not reflect well on the company. Their next game was Theif 4, which became a total flop, and I doubt we'll see another major game from them.

 

Are you sure about that? It might not be the most mind-blowing RPG out there but it is an RPG. And combat-wise it's more of an RPG than Fallout 3 or New Vegas ever were.

 

I don't know about Thief, but it is hardly relevant here.

 

In contrast, Deus Ex was a genuine FPS/RPG, and for all its flaws, that part of the game worked. Worked well enough to practically spawn a genre. And anyone who actually spent time playing the game and learning the system came to appreciate it. Now, if you just went in and tried to play it like it was Doom, you got killed. Fast. And that caused a lot of players to throw a child's tantrum and stop playing. If you're one of these people, then move along. The game isn't for you. And neither is Fallout, probably. So you really ought not complain that it doesn't play the way you want it to. Go play Halo, mor Modern Warefare, or something.

 

You fellas really like telling other people how to play their games huh?

 

That's a pretty unfair statement. I hate Call of Duty as much as the next man, it doesn't represent my idea of good gunplay either. But neither does Fallout 3, they are in the same basket from that perspective, only major difference is in their pacing; while Call of Duty is all about running and shooting at the same time, occasionally "spamming" grenades and pressing X to pay respects, Fallout 3 has you sneaking up on an enemy so you can put 5 or 6 shotgun rounds in their head (that varies per difficulty).

 

That's essentially what Fallout 3's "l33t RPG combat" is. Camping in front of enemies, bringing up VATS, clicking half a dozen times on their head and watching half of those shots miss while the rest put a small dent in their health. Sometimes you target multiple enemies at once if you have enough action points, which is unlikely at high difficulty levels.

 

Deus Ex Human Revolution's combat on the other hand actually revolves mostly around tactics and maneuvering. It may be a linear game for the most part but every map was designed in such a way to allow you to create your own approach regardless of whether you like to do things quietly (sneak up on enemies and take them out one by one) or loudly (set strategic traps around the place and lead enemies to them). Only exception were the boss fights, but that was rectified in the Director's Cut.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Eurotrash

[K^2]

I derive no information about your play style from you disliking FO3 gun combat. It is a very poorly designed system, and I don't think anyone liked free-shooting in FO3. Even people, like myself, who went in hopsing to avoid VATS.

 

But the fact that you did not appreciate combat mechanics in DX, prefering HR mechanics over it, tells me that you are not really part of the target audience for FO3. FO3 was designed to take the FO1/2 gameplay, and add action elements to it. These are the same principles that went into the original Deus Ex. The idea of RPG-first, staggered in a way to make it flow with FPS front end.

 

HR is built completely different. The RPG-style mechanics are entirely bolted on. They are not a part of core gameplay. They don't even matter in the large scheme of things. Yes, the levels are built so that you can do combat straight-on or in a sneaky way, but you can always switch from one approach to another. None of your previous choices on the matter, well, matter. The RPG elements are added on for the flare. The game itself plays like an FPS. You can play it like ordinary FPS, ignoring any of the RPG elements, and you will not have a worse experience for it. It might be slightly more challenging in a few places, but entirely within reason.

 

Even Invisible War provided more in terms of RPG than HR did. For all of its simplifications, reductions, and streamlining, there was an RPG core to that game. There were decisions that fundamentally altered how you interacted with that world. Both in terms of choices you've made talking to NPCs, and choices you've made in selecting your upgrades and weapons.

 

In games like these, your ability to handle weapons depends both on your skill as a player and on your character's. You will be penalized for not spending points in pistols or for not buying that recoil stabilizer. And it will mean missing when you've had a perfect shot lined up. And you might not appreciate it, and you might think it's retarded, but that's why I'm telling you that the game isn't designed with you in mind. Maybe you can get over that and still enjoy the game. And that's great. But they aren't going to go and give you perfect aim just because you can't appreciate RPG mechanics.

 

Well, actually, they sort of do. You can always open up the console and set all your firearm-related skills to max. If you really think it's retarded, just go for it.

[Eurotrash]

But the fact that you did not appreciate combat mechanics in DX, prefering HR mechanics over it, tells me that you are not really part of the target audience for FO3.

 

Actually that's mostly because I never played the original Deus Ex But you suggested it was similar to Fallout 3 in the sense that you could have your gun shoved up an enemy's ass and it could still miss the shot because the numbers weren't in your favor. Any combat system that has that issue is crap IMO.

 

At the end of the day that's really my only complaint with the Fallout 3 combat system itself. Beyond that it's just a matter of quality.

HR is built completely different. The RPG-style mechanics are entirely bolted on. They are not a part of core gameplay. They don't even matter in the large scheme of things. Yes, the levels are built so that you can do combat straight-on or in a sneaky way, but you can always switch from one approach to another. None of your previous choices on the matter, well, matter. The RPG elements are added on for the flare. The game itself plays like an FPS. You can play it like ordinary FPS, ignoring any of the RPG elements, and you will not have a worse experience for it. It might be slightly more challenging in a few places, but entirely within reason.

 

When I tried that I got shot once in the face and died. I admit I am really bad at first person shooters but I don't think that was the problem, I think Deus Ex Human Revolution wasn't designed to be played as an ordinary FPS. Maybe it's possible on lower difficulty levels? But anything below Give Me Deus Ex is just pathetically easy.

 

I'm not going to debate whether Deus Ex Human Revolution is a good RPG or not. Like I said, I've never played the original Deus Ex, or any Deus Ex besides Human Revolution. From a new player's perspective it felt like a good enough RPG.

 

Combat in Human Revolution is hardly perfect but my initial point is that I think it beats running up to an enemy, sitting your ass down and shooting them in the face until either they die or you do by a mile, and its' closer to what RPG combat should be like than Fallout 3's system.

 

In games like these, your ability to handle weapons depends both on your skill as a player and on your character's. You will be penalized for not spending points in pistols or for not buying that recoil stabilizer. And it will mean missing when you've had a perfect shot lined up. And you might not appreciate it, and you might think it's retarded, but that's why I'm telling you that the game isn't designed with you in mind. Maybe you can get over that and still enjoy the game. And that's great. But they aren't going to go and give you perfect aim just because you can't appreciate RPG mechanics.

 

That makes sense, but I'm not talking about missing an easy shot from a few meters away, I'm talking about missing a point blank shot. I'm talking about missing enemies that take up your entire screen when you're aiming at them. THAT, is beyond stupid.

 

Plus there are other, more logical ways to make the character's abilities impact combat. Instead of making the bullet magically teleport away when your Guns or Small Guns skill is low they could implement recoil.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Eurotrash

[K^2]

Ok, I see where the misunderstanding comes from.

 

Deus Ex had added a random spread to your shot. If you were at point blank range, you couldn't miss, because the object you're shooting at takes up your entire screen, and no amount of spread is going to make you miss. But this sort of situation didn't really happen, either, because enemies were pretty good at shooting back, and enemies could take headshots too, which meant instant death in that game. You could, sometimes, sneak up to somebody in close-quarters range, but even then you won't be perfectly point-blank without alerting your target.

 

Anyways, at a more practical combat range, bullet spread is still a roll of the dice. So is FO3's system. The problem is entirely in how it is presented to the player, and how it handles edge cases, like point-blank range. It's almost identical math, but one feels fair, the other doesn't.

 

You really should try out Deus Ex. You can often grab it for peanuts on Steam. (I thought I had an extra copy sitting around, but turns out it's an extra copy of Human Revolution.) There was also a demo, and you can still download it. It's basically the entire first mission of the game. More than enough to try out the combat. I just don't know if it will run well on modern machines. Worth a try, probably.

 

Deus Ex Demo

[Eurotrash]

Deus Ex had added a random spread to your shot. If you were at point blank range, you couldn't miss, because the object you're shooting at takes up your entire screen, and no amount of spread is going to make you miss. But this sort of situation didn't really happen, either, because enemies were pretty good at shooting back, and enemies could take headshots too, which meant instant death in that game. You could, sometimes, sneak up to somebody in close-quarters range, but even then you won't be perfectly point-blank without alerting your target.

 

Anyways, at a more practical combat range, bullet spread is still a roll of the dice. So is FO3's system. The problem is entirely in how it is presented to the player, and how it handles edge cases, like point-blank range. It's almost identical math, but one feels fair, the other doesn't.

 

You really should try out Deus Ex. You can often grab it for peanuts on Steam. (I thought I had an extra copy sitting around, but turns out it's an extra copy of Human Revolution.) There was also a demo, and you can still download it. It's basically the entire first mission of the game. More than enough to try out the combat. I just don't know if it will run well on modern machines. Worth a try, probably.

 

Spread makes sense, almost every shooter these days features spread, though personally I'd prefer minimal spread and actual recoil to balance things out, like in Mafia.

[K^2]

It's not just recoil with guns. The way DX handles spread feels very consistent with my experience of shooting handguns at the range. Even with a single shot and well balanced gun, without training, you are surprised at where the bullet ends up with respect to where you thought you were aiming. If you steady the shot, this improves. It improves a lot more as you train.

 

But DX took recoil into account as well. Firing a shot briefly increased spread for the following shot. So single shots were more precise than short bursts, and short bursts more precise than full auto. In fact, when firing full auto, you're basically just throwing away ammo, unless you are really close to the target. Not that you couldn't kill whatever it is anyways, by just firing enough bullets, and having enough of them hit, but it was far smarter to take bursts.