No, in fact we were just talking and everything was fine, I said good bye and went my way, then I got shot at pretty much immediately, so I turned around, and turns out she was the one shooting at me.

I doubt that, since I had only seen their shadows, they were nowhere near me, so even if they were to follow me they couldn't have been in front of me outside of the cave.

Deathclaws ARE intelligent. Just throwing it out there. What the hell were you doing messing with Deathclaws?

Deathclaws are also fucking dangerous, even armour piercing 5.56 ammo isn't much use against them. Anyone got a good counter? I don't want to be lugging a missile launcher around just in case I meet a deathclaw

As for bugs, the only ones I've had have been getting stuck in geometry once or twice in hard to get to places (and easily fixed with a fast travel to the nearest location) and the rad meter on the pipboy pretending its an analogue clock in a movie about time travel and just spinning counterclockwise endlessly (might be related to the headspinner thing that I never got)

I've seen plenty of little mistakes, most notably items being marked as owned even when they're by the enemy (I rescued some slaves from a legion camp by killing the legionaries but the camp footlockers weren't freely lootable so I'd get bad karma stealing from dead slavers). The only one that had a real effect on the game was at helios one, you have to activate a computer in a fenced off area that has guard dogs in and the dogs are set to hostile but if you attack them I suspect that you'd lose rep

Dunno if they have changed it in NV but in FO3 the way to deal with Deathclaws was hand to hand. Deathclaw gauntlet and 100 unarmed puts them in their place.

Brings back fond memories of punching out Deathclaws in F1 with the Power Fist. :)

Sad thing is Bethestda really ruined power weapons in FO3. Fisto! was useless. Like I said make a Deathclaw gauntlet and it it's the best H2H weapon in the game.

Well you need something with massive armour penetration, even headshots with a 5.56 rifle with AP ammo doesn't do much. Its times like this I miss the chance to try for eyeshots, with the new armour system that'd be a good tactic.

Heh there's a mod idea, a hamster rifle which is the only weapon that can go for the eyes...

All hail the hamster launcher!

I'm not saying that it's the only way to make a game immersive. What I'm saying is that it depends on the nature of the game. For instance the Total War games have a turn based strategic map that feature a large chunk of the world (typically Europe and the surrounding area).

Unlike Civ, where the battles are fought on the same map - keeping the game as one cohesive whole - the battles are real time tactical battles where you can control every aspect of the battle. Compared to Civ, that actually adds to the immersion despite completely changing the pace and nature of play.

Books. Books are a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. If a book switched from a third person style to first person and back again then yes, I think that would lessen the immersion. That is not to say that either style is superior (although I don't typically favour first person). It's simply that switching between styles can be detrimental, depending on the nature of the book.

I do agree with your point about developers thinking one approach is the best for any type of game. The thing that most bothers me about the upcoming XCOM is that the developers attempted to justify making it an FPS by saying 'well, that's what we make' /paraphrase. While the tactical sections could actually benefit from the perspective shift, they're producing the entire game in first person, which can only be detrimental to every other aspect of the game.

If the variety is well considered, like the old X-Com games, or indeed Total War then yes it is a good thing. But if it exists primarily due to technical limitations and the need to break up a game to fit within these constraints then it's not necessarily such a good thing. It could still be the best way to approach it, but the odds are against it.

With roleplaying games, where you're focussing on the story of one character, well it's the same as with literature, you don't want it broken up into a variety of styles. It's not necessary and can be damaging to immersion. Roleplaying games are pretty unique in that regard. It wouldn't matter so much if a strategy or action game was broken up into varous styles of play. But when you're a single character and shaping thier story the fragmentation is unwelcome.

So you'd have wanted Fallout 1 to have syndicate style combat or did it just need to be faster and more visually dynamic?

Something more along the lines of Syndicate was attempted by Black Isle in their unofficial Fallout 3, Van Buren (which lacked turn based combat entirely). So that's obviously the direction they wanted to take the series in themselves.

As for changing Fallout, I don't know to be honest. Like I said it's partly to do with the technical limitations of the time. You can't be expected to react as well when controlling a sprite from a top down perspective as you can when controlling a character in first person in a full 3D environment. That goes for Syndicate too. Which is why I wouldn't object to first person tactical sections in Starbreeze's game.

So while I might not agree with Bethesda's choice of engine or their writing skills, I do think that the way they altered the fundamental way you played the game was for the best. It's just that they were pretty damn far from perfecting it in any capacity. I still loved the game though.

Really? I always manage to do a hell of a lot better with 3rd person than with first for the simple fact that I can see the areas around me even when the character can't. Its a goldilocks situation really, the porride is too hot when you have an overhead view and too cold when you have a far too narrow FOV with no peripheral vision in an FPS

What I'd personally have done with F3/FNV had I the chance to redesign it would be to make it a 3rd person squad level real time tactics with 2-3 controllable companions at a time, vats and a pause & order system. Perspective comparable to Full Spectrum Warrior, orders comparable to an RTS and everything else fully fallout.

Yeah, third person can offer the best of both worlds. Can do. The third person perspective in Fallout 3 was awful and should have been abandoned entirely rather than including something that undeveloped and exploit-ridden. But in Max Payne it was a thing of beauty. Max Payne would never in a million years have been as good first person.

First person seems to be far easier for developers to get right, but when they get third person right it certainly shows. In Bethesda's case I'd be far happier if they stuck with first person, to be honest. I think they'd have to hire some more people that know what they're talking about before they could attempt third person again.

I feel that there is quite a substantial difference between third person and the top down view of Fallout and Syndicate. That represents a further level of abstraction which can hamper reaction times.

However it can aid in tactical situations and indeed in games like Advanced Warfighter (PC version) the two perspectives have worked well together in providing a more complete tactical experience without changing the nature of the game. In fact that game seems like a good example of how you'd have done Fallout's combat. Which is therefore something I can agree with.

Maybe you could capture one of those Enclave eyebots and use that as your eye in the sky? Possibilities...

Now that the series has been re-established, this would be a good way to present the next game. But to bring the series back using this style of play would have killed it. Sales would not have been very good.

Have about 7+ hours under my belt of play time, so here are my impressions. Keep in mind that I have been a huge fan of the Fallout series since the first game came out when I was in high school, and I actually like Fallout 3.

Gameplay is similar to Fallout 3. Duh. However, the entire world in which the game takes place is much more accurate to the original series, which gives a HUGE sense of nostalgia that was missing from Fallout 3. When I heard to the background music to Necropolis (I think it was that track. I know it was the deserted/evil city track from the first game) playing when I entered the "attacked city" (don't want to give spoilers) I couldn't help but smile.

I am playing on hardcore mode since I wanted the full Fallout experience from the original games, and I have to say it is a bit more challenging than just dropping stimpacks on everything. Difficulty was getting insane with it early on. However, once I got Boone, hardcore mode turned into super easy mode, with me and him sniping every single raider and legionnaire we ran into without taking a hit.

Overall, I'm quite happy with it, but then again, I was happy with Fallout 3 as well. This one just captures the essence of the first two games (Especially 2) much more.

On a side note, I am getting pissed with the complete lock ups the game has. I got it for my PS3 since I wanted to relax on my couch and play it on my 47 inch tv, but after an hour and half - 2 hours of playtime the game locks up and freezes the whole system. I know they are working on it, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating in the meantime.