Jump to content

random n00b

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by random n00b

  1. They are the same in the sense that pulling out NAO would lead to an increase in violence and unacceptable chances of undesirable elements getting back into power by means of said violence...
  2. Yeah, my complaints with the ending are pretty much the same. After finishing the game once, I am left with a feeling that the main quest is just not good enough to pursue, so I'll be content with roaming around. Including, directly and indirectly, a few slaves...
  3. I wasn't aware that GDM and me discussing Tenpenny's prevented you from discussing other things? In fact, for a while we were the only ones who kept this alive. The giant robot was nice, but I expected a quest to find a rare part or a schematic so it could be made operational. It struck me as odd that they were simply able to get it working like that, after years(?) of failures - and avoid any sort of glitch or malfunction at all. Could have been handled better.
  4. No, no. It IS roleplaying, if you are playing that way, shooting people you think is evil and all... in true vigilante fashion. That doesn't make it a GOOD action, which is the point I'm contending. Do you think Jesus (as in, Last, Best Hope of Humanity), would go around shooting people just because they "look like a threat"? GW would do that, not Jesus. However, it is not roleplaying if you allow karma hits one way or the other to define the choices you make. That is just maxing karma. This is relevant how? Those people aren't the bigots I asked about, and they are immaterial to the quest, since it's easy to convince them to accept the ghouls and thus are not part of the list Tenpenny compiles for you. You did however place those bigots on a different moral level from Roy's, when the only difference is that they won't stoop to getting their hands dirty - which is the reason they are living in the tower to begin with. Yes, the option to tell them about Underworld would have been nice, but it it wouldn't really change things... the ghouls want to live in the tower, not Underworld which, by the way, is already crowded enough. I already addressed this - are you reading? He doesn't only offer the evil option. He is open (if only apparently) to a peaceful resolution to his conflict - which is what makes him difficult to portray as an unredeemable evil bastard. This only becomes clear after he cleans the place out. So, why are you bringing this up, again? It serves as a good example of the karma mechanics working as intended, and a quest that can be completed according to the player's outlook with favorable results. That is quite obviously not the way the Tenpenny Tower quest was designed. I don't understand your comparison. I only kill for a fee. I get more loot than I can handle already from idiots attacking me all the time. No, the bad use of karma isn't specifically in Roy's case (see Messianic references above), but on Tenpenny, what with the game patting you on the back for walking up to him and shooting him in the face without trading a word. I haven't explored the Burke character too much, so perhaps there's a reason for the game doing that, but even if that's the case, it should require some sort of admission on Burke's part that he's simply carrying out instructions from his boss.
  5. Most practical, indeed. And I didn't say insufficient monitoring, I said inefficient... as I would like to think that there was some sort of oversight or negligence, as the alternative implies that somebody knew full well what was really going on, and didn't care. Knowing that there are people sick enough to act that way is depressing enough, but the idea that sane people can be fully aware and be indifferent, that is much worse.
  6. No. Didn't I explain this already? The karma system isn't concerned with results or how the world will react to the player's actions. It's an internal indicator that concerns the player alone. Doing bad things, regardless of who gets word, will net you bad karma. Really, stop throwing around these made up statements. There's no way to prove this. I have serious doubts that you have tried every possible outcome in every possible quest and killed any and all NPCs to test your theories. And also, since in F1/2, you didn't get notices every time your karma changed, it's unlikely you have any idea what you're talking about. The "norm" being what happens if you shoot Tenpenny or Burke, right? Well, that's 2v1, so it's hardly a "norm". Right. The karma system is supposed to gauge how good the character is, their intentions, and how much are they willing to go out of their way to make things better for others. Yes, this includes trying to prove to some bigots that ghouls aren't necessarily evil - even if some are. But that's FO2, and this is FO3. The technology has changed, and so, the game is able to require from you that you have something more solid than a gut feeling to off the first dude that looks at you funny. If you can't possibly live with the karma hit, that is. Hahaha. So? You are justifying your actions by means of metagaming. Your only reason to be 100% sure that Roy needs killing is the hindsight provided by the almighty reload function. And you expect the devs to reward you for metagaming? But at any rate, It's not a question of material evidence, but a question of motivation, in-game reasons, and ultimately roleplaying - a concept which obviously, you don't quite completely grasp. If, in-game, your character only has his whimsical gut feeling as a reason to off Roy, he's a vigilante at best... a fickle sociopath at worst. This is strictly false. Roy is interested only in the tower. He just happens not to want to share it with its current inhabitants, which he hates. Further, he has no problem sharing it with the player, a human. If he were driven by his bloodthirst as opposed to his desire to live in there, he would be roaming the wastes murdering humans, not sitting in some tunnels, waiting for his chance to take what he wants. Also, good work at trying to portrait the humans as the poor victims of murderous ghouls, and suggesting that their bigotry against ghouls as a whole is justified by the actions of a single ghoul, but that's really no different than justifying real world racists by mentioning the instances of crimes committed by people of the race(s) they hate. A bigot is a bigot, and a bigot willing to hire hitmen is no better than said hitmen, or the criminals that form the core of the fears that fuel their bigotry. No better as in, not less evil. But yeah, being hired to kill three people is much more acceptable than doing the same for over thirty. Really, it is! \o/ So far, you have failed to come up with solid reasons to explain why it's "whack", other than your insistence that the player should be rewarded for killing Roy based on actions he will commit. As for roleplaying, you already admitted that you defer to the karma system, so...
  7. But it's not as clear cut in this case, since Roy also accepts to try and live peacefully with the tower's inhabitants if you can convince them, even if he's a rotten liar, a fact that the player only becomes privy to AFTER trying to have both groups coexist peacefully. True enough. But it wouldn't have come off as a surprise either if he had been content with just being let into the tower, seeing how that's what his pals really want, and the whole reason for the quest. Again, you are making use of poorly built strawmen to get your point across. Most evil characters you come across either shoot you on sight, or are in the middle of nefarious business when you meet them, as is the case of slavers. In all those cases you have material proof of their deeds, as opposed to a "gut feeling" or mere declarations of bigotry and hate. How about executing the bigots inside Tenpenny's? There are a few of them that are willing to reward your efforts if you kill the ghouls - they effectively want to hire you as a hitman, as they lack the stomach to get their own dirty work done themselves. That ok by your standards, as well? Are they any less "evil"? Well, try roleplaying, then. The karma system being understood as a minigame of its own makes for very boring playthroughs.
  8. Nice. No better way to begin your day than reading about the nth instance of how depraved the human being can become. Yes, that shocked me as well. I mean, fundamentally, she's right. Institutions just can't save every kid. But it's appalling to see the head of one of those institutions making such declarations, in a case that, it stands to reason, could only have occurred due to severely inefficient monitoring.
  9. But you are given the chance to pursue a good option. It just doesn't turn out ok. Why should it? You don't like how the quest is solved, that's a different issue. And if karma is such a big deal, just go crush that bum outside Megaton under a mountain of water bottles... Yes, that's inconsistent alright. But it's not directly, essentially related to how you conduct your dealings with Roy. Why should there be such an option? It's not like Roy's plans are any more realistic than any other wasteland lunatic's, unless he enlists the player's help. You needn't kill him if you are playing a good guy, because by simply walking away, you are making sure his plans are unrealizable. Being a good guy isn't shooting bad guys on sight. That's vigilante. There's a difference. So, the player should be able to win out any situation, under all circumstances, everytime? Further, and considering that the player doesn't really lose the quest, he should be able to get exactly the desired outcome, always? And this is so, because...? I've critiziced Beth's decisions wrt other matters, but I applaud their bravery to include a quest without the same cookie-cutter and predictable resolution as virtually every other quest in every other game, in which the result is tailored to suit the player's assumed outlook. A little lack of control over a world that's supposed to be alive and only partially influenced by the player's actions is always a good thing. And for their originality, they get "hundreds", nay, thousands, zillions even, of disgruntled players, crying out in anger at the failure of their Mary Sues to get a suitably clich
  10. Only... it isn't. You are getting bad karma for killing a rather bigoted and hateful person who, at that point, hasn't done anything wrong. No matter how you try to twist it, that's as far as facts go (facts which you have been blatantly avoiding to discuss). Killing him at that point is wrong, and the game reacts as it should. The fact that the karma system isn't perfect in other instances (Tenpenny, Burke) is irrelevant. And we go back again to the root of the problem, the player's inability to talk Roy off his plan. Unless what you are suggesting is that being evil is a crime in itself, punishable by death. Pity we don't have "Detect Evil" in Fallout, eh? How many babies has Roy eaten at that point, that the player knows of? Also, you need to work on your strawmen. Which is EXACTLY what the game does, only without babies. Roy's plan was to kill the humans all along, and he makes use of the player's good intentions for his own. To him, either way works for accomplishing his goal, but he doesn't know what kind of person the player is, so he presents him with choices acceptable to anyone. Would an evil character help him "check on the babies"? Whatever. Oh, yes. I'm sure you did read him perfectly the first time you spoke to him. Of course, there's no way to separate that from the wisdom conferred by hindsight, so such declarations aren't worth much. I knew the player was Revan before installing KotOR, too. True story! And the only thing "wrong" with that is that it leaves the player feeling like he's been made a fool of and manipulated - part of the bitter aftertaste I spoke of earlier. It's an unfair comparison as well, since Tenpenny is just an inconsequential sidequest, and you are using the main quest of FO for your example. It's an unexpected and very rare turn of events, and that's part of what makes it so good.
  11. As I said, it's immaterial, even if it were that obvious. If that were the rule to follow in court, prisons would be full of people who "had plans" to kill someone, as in, they stated once they would do it. Another design oversight, that with the player being allowed to shoot Burke in a crowded bar. Should a design fault dictate mechanics throughout the game? And Roy is as "ready for the invasion" as he is ready to take over Raven Rock and the Citadel. He simply cannot do it without the player's help. If he could, he would have already. The case is fundamentally different in that the sheriff doesn't go in guns blazing. He goes in and arrests some guy who could just walk up to the nuke and set it off, for all the sheriff knows. Roy cannot do the equivalent with Tenpenny's. You are just playing vigilante with the ghouls. That's okay, but you have to deal with the consequences. Because the karma system doesn't deal with results. It deals with player actions. The link between those two is intentionally broken in this quest. Despite the player doing all in his power to make the wasteland a better place for everyone, sometimes it just doesn't work out. So then, your real beef with the quest isn't that it's broken or that the karma thing isn't dead-on. It's simply that you don't have full control over the outcome, and that even reloading, metagaming, and otherwise cheating won't yield your desired outcome and leave you with that warm, fuzzy feeling. Yeah, that's such a shame.
  12. It's neither illogical nor broken. Either suck up the karma hit for being a vigilante, or accept that the best intentions need not yield the best results. Or don't get involved at all.
  13. Good thing you are not a judge, then. Material evidence is needed for a conviction... otherwise, threats is the most they can charge anyone with. And Roy isn't a well known criminal with a past record of violent deeds, that the player knows of. Good example, only it doesn't work in your favor. The Sheriff clearly states that Burke's being arrested (not summarily executed, along with acquaintances), until things can be cleared up. Not only that, but Burke has a much better chance of setting off the bomb than Roy has of letting his ugly friends inside Tenpenny's. No, that doesn't work either, because Roy is willing to let the player try and convince the residents of the tower to let him and his friends move in peacefully. His "plans" can also be very easily construed as being simply the result of his frustration at being treated as less than human. He does let on a few hints, but he isn't a dead-on bad guy at first, he even admits he may be prejudiced himself. I'm not arguing he isn't a psycho, but he does a good work at hiding it. If he was so obviously the devil incarnate, why didn't you shoot him on sight, instead of trying to solve the matter peacefully? It's quite plain that the player is meant to be deceived by Roy in this matter. As usual, hindsigh + reload give the player the godlike ability to go back in time and see through his deception with uncanny clarity. Bah.
  14. Since it's a private endeavor, it's reasonable to assume that they will offer an integral service, complete with refueling, eventual maintenance, and depleted fuel disposal. I don't think it'll be possible to have one of these in your backyard, anyhow, so the risks of people stealing the fuel for their own are probably pretty low. The technology is on license from the US govt, so I'm not too convinced that they'd allow these things to be set up on places deemed unsafe. The disposal thing is a valid and very real concern, though. /facepalm
  15. Yep, killing Tenpenny for no good reason and not getting bad karma (further, you get a finger!) is a design mistake. But you can't extend that argument any further, really. And Roy's plan is completely ludicrous and unfeasible without inside help which, other than the player, he has a fat chance of securing. And, of course, you have the advantage of hindsight - after the player helps the ghoulies move in, it does look like Roy's darker nature won't get the best of him after all. So yeah, he's an evil bastard. But yeah, he's also quite innocent at that point in the game, which justifies the bad karma for killing him. I'm not saying that killing him may not be the best thing to do. What I'm arguing is that it's neither the right thing to do, nor justifiable from a "good" character roleplaying standpoint, since there are other venues open. The fact that he has planned the demise of the people in the tower is immaterial, and using those plans as an excuse to kill him is not justice, it's murder. Killing a would-be murderer is still murder. You are basing your decision on and justifying it with hindsight, which is metagaming, and as such, not a factor the devs considered when designing the choices available to the player. Why can't you people deal with the fact that not everything is supposed to have a happy ending, regardless of the player's efforts? The quest is meant to leave a bitter aftertaste for those playing a good character. There's this constant whining asking for more adult themes and games less sanitized for kids, and when a game presents a few dark moments in this vein, a reaction like this isn't uncommon. A somber, depressing post-apocalyptic setting, in which everyone ends up living in the house of chocolate at the end of Gingerbread Lane? Um, okay. This is the way it goes for most of the game, and it's the way it goes with Roy. Tenpenny seems to be the exception for some reason, giving you good karma whenever you kill him for whatever reasons. I'm inclined to believe it's a design oversight or a bug.
  16. Yeah, I guess the player should be rewarded for shooting up random people which he cannot convince to see his way, or when he cannot think of a solution to a problem that doesn't involve some good ol' fashioned slaughter. I mean, preemptive justice, all the way!
  17. PrtScr works for one-time screenies, but as you need to alt+tab and paste to Paint or somesuch, it's not suited if you want to take a few. For all your capturing needs: http://www.fraps.com/
  18. That's one of the most common complaints. I find it to be generally user-unfriendly too, but to be fair, I suspect the huge amount of different stuff you can grab to be the real culprit. If it's not nailed to the floor, chances are you can put it in your pack... The idea to have the Pipboy operate as the UI central hub is cool in concept, but doesn't work too well in practice.
  19. That's pretty even-handed. I didn't expect such from a 'Codex review. OMG, I'm blinded by prejudice!
  20. Yeah, that can happen if there are hostiles outside. If you have a savegame before the NPC ran away, you can use the console to bring it back: Load the save where the NPC is still where it should be (or elsewhere, but you can still see it), and open the console. Click on the NPC, and on the top of the screen you should get a code beside the NPC's name. That's its ID. Now, in your current game, go back to the NPC's default location... or not. Open the console and input: prid <ID> moveto player Of course, that won't prevent the NPC from running away again...
  21. ROFL I'm spanish and didn't realize about "nova"... that's a great name for a car, alright!
  22. Don't know about "Ford Nova", but "pajero" means "wanker" in Spanish. And let's not forget the totally sweet and awesome Mazda Laputa!
  23. Yeah, that would have worked too. But that way, the player would never get the satisfaction of blowing the lying, cheating, murderous maggot farm to pieces! You are probably right about the game not acknowledging the latest developments - Three Dog keeps barking about how the ghouls killed everyone in the tower, but no mention of Roy's death, or the fact that the tower is empty now... but as I said, I think the quest is kinda broken in my game. It may just be me, but I love this kind of twisted resolutions in games. That's why, unlike most people I know, the Prince ending of Bloodlines blew me away. Ahem.
  • Create New...