"I've been enjoying the Fallout Tactics demo off and on for the last week, but one thing has struck me about the game design, at least the little bit that the two mission demo reveals. It seems to play very much like a hack and slash RPG."

http://www.quartertothree.com/news/2001_jan_news/fallout_tactics_demo_thoughts.shtml

Comments?

I don't know if I'm relieved or disappointed. I tried to visualize how in heck it would be possible for me to control all my guys in a real-time battle, and yet have realistic AI in the enemies. I've concluded that I wouldn't be able to. It's disappointing that the enemies don't try to sneak up on my guys, that they don't react very realistically to their base being systematically destroyed as I attack it. But it's a relief too, since I know that I'm not a computer, able to control all my guys at once.

Fallout Tactics has immense appeal when you remember the memorable battles from the two RPGs. Perhaps turn-based is the only way to recapture the feel from those games. What's so bad about action points for movement, anyway?

Turn-based AND real-time modes.

The real-mode mode screwing up the turn-based mode, because of the innate design differences between the two not taken into account. (In this case, hit points.)

Wow -- Cyberstorm 2:Corporate Wars reborn.

--scharmers
(Who, BTW, is playing FO2 -- again -- right now)

"Wow -- Cyberstorm 2:Corporate Wars reborn."

Well, it's not nearly as severe as that example, but it does feel it's skewed a bit that way like Cyberstorm 2 was. It reminded me more of X-COM Apoc's turn-based mode.

One thing I didn't mention that I probably should have is just how hard it is to hit a target. It seemed like I was getting a 24% hit probability all the time, even if my character would be 10 feet away. In the future we can't shoot straight, apparently.

"One thing I didn't mention that I probably should
have is just how hard it is to hit a target. It
seemed like I was getting a 24% hit probability
all the time, even if my character would be 10
feet away. In the future we can't shoot straight,
apparently."

As long as I can shoot better than your average
stormtrooper, I'm happy.
I really hope the guys who made X-Com will be
succesful with their new venture (both the name of
the company and the game they're working on eludes
me at the moment). It has been too long since we
managed to get to Mars and shoot our way through
several levels of slithering martians. Hopefully
the new game will incite the same love that I have
for X-Com.

The demo sucked.

This chris taylor has no idea about game desing.

nuff said.

In my experience with the demo (note I played it in turn-based mode; I'm a fan of the originals and I want to think my moves over before making them):

In FO1/2 when an anamy first spotted you, combat would begin. in FO:BOS an enemy can see you and then run into your midst and then start shooting /and then/ combat will begin. It was caught unawares with that at times while I was looking at another portion of the screen.

I was really disapointed how youre forced to use realtime.
i dont WANT to play realtime. it just didnt feel right

Tax, you can play turn-based. There's an option you can select that forces turn-based movement as soon as you get into a combat situation.

The game seemed interesting and the Fallout name does give it appeal. However, there were several problems. First off, the real time mode controls are rather poor, so you guys just do what they want anyway, so while they're just sitting around, every enemy in the area runs at a few of your guys, killing them. Another thing that peeved me was that, while you could play in turn-based mode, it would never tell you how many AP it took to move. On top of it all, for some reason I got stuck in combat mode in Turn-based and I would never get out of combat. Do you know how annoying that is, to move each character, one at a time. Anyway, at least that is probably just a bug.

"Another thing that
peeved me was that, while you could play in turn-based mode, it would never tell you how many AP it took to move."

If you read the demo read-me file, they state that while the demo doesn't have this, the full game -will- show AP costs for movement.

Re the new xcom game/teams names: Freedom Ridge and ?Dreamland?

I hope it goes well. It seems like a really good game, and something I would buy in a heartbeat.

We're running a preview of Dreamland today. It should be up in a few hours.

Well, There are things I liked and disliked about the demo. Overall, I feel it captured the feel of the Fallout games. For those who complained that the characters are fairly poor shots, notice that most of the characters where begining level characters. Like the Fallout games, you start off mediocer and improve with gameplay. Secondly, some complained that the game seemed to herd you a bit, but if you noticed, the demo is a limited version of the game, designed to give a feel for the game. If you noticed, most of the tutorials were based off the first mission. It allows those unfamiliar with the genre a chance to get into the game with a easy learning curve. Advanced and deadly AI, while great in the game after the learning curve has been met, would only frustrate many newcomers, and perhaps dissuade their interest in the game.
However, because of the limited nature of the demo, I am left wondering exactly how the gameplay and outfitting will work. I would have liked to see at least some limited customization for thd demo, but then again, it is only a demo.
I did enjoy the layout of the briefing, which game the begginers a clear idea of what was going on. I'm sure in the game, information will be limited based upon the nature of the mission.
Overall, I enjoyed the demo, and am looking forward torwards the final product with some anticipation.

I liked the demo. They need to do something about the AI, though, and I bet most of the missions are confined and "corridor-like". I think when they talk about achieving goals through multiple methods, they are talking about using different types of characters to do things.

I did like the demo. Although a few things struck me as odd. Like not being able to select which man I move first in turn based. I still move all of my people before they move theirs... why is this?
It could be based on the sequence modifiers ... but throughout the mission is seems to stay in the same order anyway.

Scott, I was wondering about the turn order too. I can't tell if it's initiative based. If it's not, then for gosh sakes let me move them in the order I want to move them.

The thing that amazed me the most was going to the official FOT boards, posting my feedback, and having Chris Taylor address my issues directly. As far as I can tell, they dev. team is on the ball and working to respond to the feedback they're getting.

The only real problem I have is that turn-based and continuous turn-based (CTB) play so very differently, mostly because of the movement cost in turn-based (which is a non-issue in CTB). They hinted that opportunity fire might make it into the final build, which would go along way towards alleviating such difficulties.

Side note: As playing Jedi Knight will remind you, Stormtroopers rifles were deadly in close quarters, but horribly inaccurate at long ranges. Built by the lowest bidder, no doubt.

Another side note: I didn't get the full answer, but 'sequence' is definitely in the game, based on perception and agility. I actually don't so much mind the rigid turn-order. 101 Airborne used it quite effectively.

Yes, FOT is a bit hack-n-slash-ish, but it *has* been billed as such. I would call it the "Icewind Dale" of the Fallout series.

I don't really mind the emphasis on the hack and slash in FOT. I was just a bit surprised by how much it reminded me of a dungeon crawl, when games like JA and X-COM do not. I hope some of the missions are a bit more open-ended and don't funnel us through encounters in a sequential manner.

Heh -- funny line about the Stormtrooper rifles. Why did they bother wearing that armor, too? Single shots took them down.