Aristes

I'm the one who started the latest round of the 'ol' skool hardcore Fallout fan' discussion. First of all, I didn't mean to put everyone on the defensive about it. I'm going to have a long say, and I'm afraid it will offend some members. It's not my intent, but I apologize in advance. You guys don't like this strange phenomenon of grouping Fallout fans together? Why is there such a phenomenon in the first place? It's not like folks got up one morning and said, "hey, let's create a conspiracy to take jabs at folks from the Codex and NMA and etc." This perception exists, and, while I should not have to point out every petty, self evident fact, I'll get a few of them out of the way. No, I don't think that Ol' Skool Hardcore Fallout Fans (the Faction*) is a hive mind. No, I don't think that everyone who rails 'gainst Fallout 3 hates it because it isn't Fallout 1. No, I don't think everyone who hates it does so because they're a Bethesda hater. Etc. I'm sure some of these factors are true in some cases, but not all. I, myself, am a huge fan of the original series, so I don't even think being a true 'Fallout Fan' automatically puts you in this faction. As you can see, I describe folks associated with this phenomenon as part of a faction. Maybe a leaderless faction that has formed organically, but the members are in a faction. In other words, you don't have to 'join' to be part of the Faction. The way I see it, there is a certain consistency in the types and nature of arguments that come from the Faction. That's one reason it's a clearly defined group. On the other hand, because most folks can understand that folks aren't hive-minded and that each of the arguments, especially individually, are perfectly legitimate springboards for discussion, it's hard to point at any particular person and accuse them of being part of the Faction. Plus, it's just rude to do so. It's like when folks used the term "Fallout Taliban" or some of the less fortunate names associated with a group of folks who are defined by the desire to see a return to their favorite Fallout principles. Now, you might want to flame me for bringing this up, and I'll forgive you if you do. Certainly, I don't want the mods to put anybody on mod status for bringing a little heat to their response. Anything you call me or say in regards to my mental state from petty to grandiose to stupid to whatever, I've heard before. However, the 800lb gorilla in the room is the fact that folks perceive a Fallout Faction and they respond to it. Hell, the Faction is famous. For example, the folks who made BoS** literally had a plan for dealing with the Fallout Faction. They had decided to "fight fire with fire." I thought it was a silly assed idea, but those were their words, not mine. Allegedly, one of the Faction posted the name, address, and telephone number of each of the people in the design team. I don't know for sure if that's true, but I know that folks seemed to be quite aggitate by the Faction. More to the point, Bethesda has an incredibly draconian response to folks they think are part of the Fallout Faction. Cronicler says he's been booted several times. Now, unless his posts there were significantly more hostile than here, such booting demonstrates a zero tolerance policy that I find truly remarkable. The Faction has a rep. There's not getting around it. ...And, whether you, as an individual, like it or not, you might belong in the Faction, since perceived membership is defined by online arguments and attitudes. So, sorry, but you're going to hear about how the Faction wants this or doesn't want that or will never be satisfied with such. It's going to happen and I think it's perfectly legit to cite the group since the ship has already sailed in terms of defining it. As for the Van Buren idea... no. There were certainly less flames regarding IP's Van Buren project, but I was around some during the time Van Buren was under development. There were folks who were unhappy about a lot of the ideas in Van Buren. There are still folks who disparage Fallout 2, for crying out loud, as not being true to the spirit of Fallout. Yeah, the members of the Faction might decline depending on the circumstances, but there will still be a Faction no matter what feasible game hits the shelves and it will still be a readily identified and vocal faction. Having gotten that out of the way, I'm willing to take the heat for stating the obvious. I've been pretty much left out of the flaming sessions in this thread and I'm pretty durable, so I might as well be the guy who says it. *I'm not trying to coin a phrase with the Faction thing, by the way. I'm just using it for short-hand and it's far less offensive than the other short hand terms I've heard. **I didn't play the game and I know I'm opening up a can worms as we descend into the pit of BoS hating. If the mod team believes this post is over the top or too prone to bring a post-apocalyptic wasteland to this thread, feel free to send it to the gulag.

Right now, I'm being seriously ****ing miserable. This insomnia bull**** is driving me up the damned walls.

I don't know about the modding kit, but VATS has taken a lot of complaints, even from folks who like the game. I don't think at least a little tinkering is out of the question. Plus, what the hell, your job as a consumer is to grief the developer for stuff you want to see. I mean, go gonzo and they'll probably just ban you, but keep a few low level flames on their feet and you never know what will happen. I don't think any of the ol' skool hard core Fallout fans will be satisfied. I don't think it's possible. I mean, Fallout 2 took a lot of grief when it shipped from a lot of hardcore fans. That eased over time, probably because it became clear it wasn't a matter of moving back towards what they perceived as the original Fallout design. It was more a matter of, "hey, dude, I don't think we're ever getting a sequel." Still, folks go after Fallout 2 often enough in these threads. It's kind of sad, because Fallout 2 is actually my favorite from the entire series. I just happen to prefer the top down view with turn based combat. I also prefer the chat boxes from the original Fallouts. *shrug* EDIT: I said something and thought better of it... and then read cronicler's post. Yeah, I tend to look for areas of agreement within conflict also. For what it's worth, I think your points are well made. I don't know what they'll do with FO:NV, but I'm actually pretty optimistic since I think Fallout and Fallout 3 describe the boundaries and I'm happy with anything in between. Well, that and I think some of you guys sound like you know a lot more about game design than I do.

I don't disagree with all your points, cronicler, but I completely disagree with your basic premise. Look, I understand that you have your problems with Fallout 3, but I don't see Fallout 3 as a terrible game. In fact, I had a lot of fun playing it. In further fact, I think it's a kick ass game. If all Obsidian does is put out a complete expansion pack with a solid story and good NPCs, I'll be happy. In most cases, I agree with you about the problems, but the severity of these problem is where we diverge. I think stats should have a more direct impact on gameplay, but that brings it's own issues. Not only that, but some perks don't become available until later levels or with certain stats. Yes, I think perks should be modified, but it's not like they were such a complete loss that I didn't enjoy the gameplay. Here's the thing, for someone who had so much fun playing Fallout 3, I'm leery of advice coming from folks who thought the game was a complete loss. However, your ideas sound clever and so I'm not against them in principle. The upshot is that I like the idea of using special circumstances for some of the more powerful perks, but I don't want to completely gut the perks "just 'cause." Some of the remedies, especially coming from folks who dislike Fallout 3 in the first place, might not be an improvement. Oerwinde: Cool. You want it to be in line with previous games.

I actually like your idea cronicler, but I see the perks imparted in such a way as limited and used to augment the basic system. In other words, the perks could still use a rehaul, but your idea could supplement the system and reward certain gameplay types. That's my take at least. This all assumes that Obsidian can make substantial changes of this nature. I mean, I do recognize some issues with the perks, but it's not like I didn't really dig the game. I like talking theory, but it's out of my league, I'm afraid. I know what I want when I play it, but I'm not really sure what those things are. Sometimes things sound really great in theory but don't play all that well on the screen. Gromnir has said before, and I sadly agree, that sometimes players need to be saved from themselves. EDIT: Aw, what the hell. Overcame my laziness and cleaned up a redundancy.

A more complex idea, but I would be happy with it. I mean, I'm happy with FO3, but the perks could be improved for sure. One of the reasons I think VATS is simply here to stay is because of the number of VATS perks included in the game. Having more substantial perks that centered on something other than VATS would be great also. I don't want to get as much into the nitty gritty, but I like the idea of a point buy system. Of course, I'm pretty happy with clever systems as long as they don't become too unwieldly.

I don't know. Hoi Polloi have enjoyed games with slower PC prowess accumulation. They've also enjoyed games with a faster power progression. I didn't have a problem with it per se, but I think it would be much better to have three levels per perk and have the perks more substantial. If Obsidian can't do that, maybe they can scale down some of the current stat bump perks and allow them every level. For me, I like having perks with more impact, not necessarily entirely centered on combat, at greater intervals would be a plus. So more substantial perks every three levels and scaled back perks each level. In fact, reduce the skill bonus for each level and you've basically got the same thing, only in disguise.

Aw, that's just mean! Las Vegas has some wonderful places around it. It's not all the strip, ya know! Seriously, sounds like a kick ass trip, man. Have fun.

I get it, Promethean. I had written a longer response, but I guess I'll leave it at I understand that you don't really want to leave everything up to commercial success because you probably hope that there is still some market for the game you'd really like to see. Yes, Grim Fandango is more entertaining for me personally than any Wii game I've played. I read cronicler's post on stats and skills. I didn't completely agree with everything, but I hope that some of those changes make it into the NV title. If they do, it will be a bit more like the previous two Fallouts.

EDIT: The thing is, why are comparing Arcanum to Fallout 3? I had fun with Arcanum, but I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. Arcanum is like one of the inhabitants of the Isle of Lost toys in Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Yeah, you feel sorry for it, but not enough people wanted it. There are tons of games that I like that I wish had warranted a sequel, starting with Planescape: Torment. ...Or, if not a sequel, then a successor. It sucks to be me sometimes. We can argue for elements we've seen in different games, but making the argument on a developer's page that Fallout 3 got it all wrong while Arcanum had it all right doesn't make sense. (Oh, yeah, I know. No one said Arcanum was perfect and no one said Fallout 3 was entirely bad. Whatever.) For all that I liked it, Arcanum was a failure. For all that I liked it, PS:T was a failure. I want to find ways that the design team can include features I liked most by convincing them that they can make a commercial success out of it. That it can work in *this* game if we did it *this* way. Troika was a failure. They had great ideas and made games that I, personally, enjoyed, sure. At the end of the day, though, they had to close their doors.

Oh, I don't know. I thought Grampy Bone was interesting.

Hey, that sounds cool, Hurlshot. Why skip Las Vegas, though? You could do some research for when you play Fallout: New Vegas!

I actually really enjoyed Arcanum, although I've never downloaded a patch for it. I haven't played it for years. I wonder if I still have the CD around here somewhere. I vaguely remember Virgil, but I don't recall the other NPCs very well. That's probably because I played it so long ago. I thought the premise was quite promising, and the amount of choices during level up was impressive as well. On the other hand, while some player created patches are good, they are also irrelevant in judging a game. Hell, half the time official patches are irrelevant. The game as folks play it is all that really matters. Yes, if the game has a lot of promise and there is a patch quickly available, then a bad game can become good. Still, a lot of gamers never even give a game a second chance. Hell, I don't even think NWN is an exception. As a stand-alone, I don't think NWN would have been saved by player patches. Using the tool-set, player created content is what saved the franchise, and it's still thriving. I think Troika's best work was Bloodlines, and that came too little and too late as it seems to me. It's too bad, since I really want a Bloodlines sequel. So, the discussion is now comparing Troika games to FO3? lol If Troika had made FO3, it would not have been nearly so successful. I also happen to think it would have been an inferior product, but that's a different discussion.

Regenerate from that, Mother-****er! hahahaha Anyhow, I'm playing the Witcher at the moment. Good stuff.

Yeah, but that's a Fallout Standard. There is no way, even a short amount of time after the war, that folks would not have built better dwellings. The human race would have **** or gotten off the pot by then. Either humans would be in more or less thriving communities a few decades after the bombs fell, they'd be extinct, or they'd be worshipping at the feet of their glowing green ape overlords. Fallout is the wasteland. It doesn't matter if they set the damned thing a thousand years after the fact. ...And, frankly, by the time a thousand years have come and gone, they might as well call it the second post apocalypse. This has always been an area where folks were forced to accept the idea and play with it.

I hadn't planned on getting any of the DLC products, and this list has not encouraged me to change my mind. I just prefer full games rather than mini-games. An xpac is fine, as long as it adds sufficient content to make it worth my while. In fact, I'd rather pay more for more content that's polished than pay less for a small amount of inferior content. As for the permutations, I'm still figuring that out.

Damned rogue!

I get you, bro, but my point is that you're still limited by the number of pins you have. In other words, our real life thief might not get the lock on the first try, but he can get it. In real life, there are specialized tools for locksmithing/picking. So I don't want a single roll event for lockpicking anyhow. At the end of the day, however, I have to admit that I'm not wed to the idea of lockpicking mini games. Usually, I just suffer through them because I am impatient and mini-games keep me from furthering the plot. Even stuff as simple and fun as the Witcher's Yatzee.... or Poker... or whatever it's supposed to be, and that's one of the best of the bunch. On the other hand, as you said you'd like the lock picking mini-game to be, the dice game in Witcher is entirely optional.

It never bothered me a huge amount. Likewise, mashing gear together to fix it didn't bother me much. I knew the point was that it was an abstract representation of cannibalizing one item to fix another. However, if we add ammo weight, then it gets to be really old really fast. Even as it is, I still don't like the rapid deterioration. It was more onerous than fun. As far as the lockpicking minigame, I don't like the idea of getting rid of it because, as long as I've got the skill to try to succeed, I will almost certainly succeed before I run out of pins. I get to keep trying as long as I have resources. If it's a straight up chance, then I'm SoL. ...And the mini-game favors the player in this case, I think. On the other hand, In one game, I maxed the skill, which means automatic success if we get rid of the game, while I might still waste a pin in the mini game. It was extremely short, not exactly fun per se, but it did change over time as your skill increased. In other words, trying to pick a lol with minimal skill was different than picking a lock with max skill. I think I'll compile a list of things I don't want to change. This thread has been all about why Fallout 3 needs to change, and I agree with many of the points folks have expressed. However, there doesn't need to be another voice railing for change. It's equally important to defend the things that you would like to carry over into the new game in the franchise. cronicler: I didn't add anything to my long winded post, you doofus. I just corrected a typo. ...Or at least I thouhgt I had.

OMG, yes. If there is 1 thing I would love to see, plz plz plz change the repair system. Either slow weapon and ammo degredation way down, eliminate it all together, or come up with a better system. HAving to carry around multiple copies of your armor and weapons is INCREDIBLY annoying. To me. Personally. Third

Let me be clear on the issue. I think arguing for more realism is generally good. It's just the way the debate is framed sometimes causes me to wonder. By and large, I'm distrustful of arguments that go something like, "FO3 is so terrible that Obsidian needs to fix it." I'm irritated by arguments that imply the aformentioned but don't say it outright. If FO3 were a new title and intellectual property, I am convinced many folks arguing over the upcoming new game in the franchise wouldn't even be here. After all, you generally don't bother arguing over what's going to happen in new games in a franchise when you didn't like the first title. However, I know that it kind of sucks on my part to try to impose my own take on your motives, so I try to have a reasonable discussion. It just seems that some of the stuff is so... I dunno... beyond the pale. Some of it is probably heartfelt and genuine in regards to minor infractions that insult some players' sensibilities. I've always been irritated by all the crap sitting in the corridors of Rivet City. Why should that bother me more than the fact that I spent all that time gathering the mats to make rail guns but eventually threw them over because I was tired of the deterioration rate on the weapon? Why should the slow mo on VATS be more irritating than the fact that I could carry thousands upon thousands of rounds of ammo? I don't know. I guess there's just no telling what will irritate you. Nevertheless, the grocery list of complaints just starts to boggle my mind. I don't care that there were a large number of working terminals. Without drawing conclusions about the motives for complaining the number of terminals, I will state my own opinion that the number of terminals was just fine. They could put in less and I'd fine but, and this is the clincher, they could put in more and I wouldn't care. I'm not a gun nut, although I have some experience with a variety of firearms. I don't have the depth and breadth of experience that many Fallout fans have, but I certainly have enough to say I'd appreciate a larger selection of weapons. In this regard, it's not a huge deal for me, but it certainly would enhance my gaming experience. The fact that old constructs are still standing was a bit jarring to me. This is one of the things I actually found curious before I even read a complaint about it. Yeah, it somewhat bugged me. The nature of the wasteland some 200 years after the event bugged me. ...But Fallout has never been realistic. Unless the nuclear war was so devastating that it destroyed all humanity in the first place, the types of settlements would be far more advanced by the time of Fallout. The amount of food and how society functions is entirely unrealistic given the amount of existing technology. Hell, by the time of Fallout, there would be enough civilization to start full fledged wars all over again. So, I can understand complaining about the wooden buildings, but I just don't think it's some huge transgression. Now, if you look at the three complaints above, I have no beef with one, I have a slight beef with another, and I fully agree as to the third. Some folks, however, appear to reach for any and every excuse to bash FO3. ...And that's what some of this is. It's not a discussion of what's to come in Fallout: New Vegas. It's Bethesda bashing with a veneer of NV discussion smeared on the top. Good Lord, Sawyer cites that... whatever the hell we're calling it today... some french word or environmental prop placement or whatever.... anyhow, Sawyer cites that Bethesda did a good job using some of these things to enhance FO3 and even his word isn't good enough. Folks are all over that because, after all, Bethesda did it. ...And the bones wouldn't be there anymore. ...And certainly not in a wooden building. ...And, omg, there's a computer terminal in the bedroom! I don't think this game is going to be hugely different from FO3 in terms of the engine and whatnot. I wouldn't mind a top down isometric game with great graphics and headshots for NPC dialogue. I won't mind another FO3 engine game either. ...But going after Bethesda will only marginalize your position. I'm serious. You should just leave FO3 out of the discussion and say: "Aristes: Why not put in different calibers like real life? 5.56 light weight, man stopping but just tickles the heavy armored foes. 7.62; heavy as hell but can harm man size or armored no problem. .50 caliber or .303 or .308 or Casull... Very heavy very slow rate of fire very hard to control after fist shot. And kills anything. Sure running back to your stash for bullets every other minute would be silly but carrying 5000+ bullets, 2000+ energy cells, 1000+ rockets gets out of control too. I know people hate real life examples but your average assistant heavy weapon: missile launcher crew carries about 5 or 7 RPG reloads at most. Sure this is a game but come on, can you imagine how much space 1000 rockets would take up? 20 rockets maybe as this is a game but 1000? and no I didn't really use heavy weapons and since I hunted around a lot they sort of got piled up I guess. I can accept that we shouldn't go as restrictive as RL but going too far in the other direction also distorts the gaming experience." That's my take at least, because I actually think a lot of the ideas have merit. I just get stuck in defensive mode because, after all, I enjoyed the game. That doesn't mean I don't want improvement. Anyhow, I'm surprised this thread has been so flame free. I'll take a few flames and not hold a grudge, but I still find the nitpicking Beth bashing irritating because I think it ghettoizes our discussion and means it's easier to discard our arguments out of hand. EDIT: GAAHHHH! WoT! Sorry, guys, I didn't mean go on that long.

I went to go help a friend with putting in two dog doors on Saturday. His wife died Friday before last and he's keeping himself busy on home projects. Anyhow, his only door to the back yard is a sliding glass door and so he decided to cut through the outside wall. The first door took a few hours to do, but we finished the second in half the time. It looks sweet. he's got a large house on a large lot and it would be absolutely sweet except that their dogs urinate and defecate all over the place. He's hoping that they'll go outside now. It's too bad that his wife, God rest her soul, would not allow him to put the doors in while she was alive. I'm going to head over there sometime this week to do some more work. We'll have to move the Jacuzi and tear out the cement where it currently sits. I think he's finally going to get his back yard in better shape. It actually looks pretty good around the pool and grill, but the actual grass area is not well kept at all. ...And, in Southern California, you have to keep on the lawn and make sure it gets watered.

Someone said earlier: "People need to just accept that Fallout 3 was a success. Forget changes in the POV. Forget changes in the game engine. Forget changes in the combat system. Expecting Obsidian to change many of the main factors in that success is unrealistic and IMHO a waste of time to discuss." I don't see why the success of the previous title means that nothing can be done to modify or enhance any one of these things. Obsidian might not take the time to do a lot with any of them, but it has to have something more than just a new story to be anything more than just an expansion pack. Don't get me wrong, I'd love an expansion pack, but there is certainly room to work with any of these ideas. VATS won't get the nerfbat that folks suspect unless Obsidian does something about the VATS perks in the game. I don't see why anything is off the table, except for POV. I don't expect major changes in the engine, but modifications aren't out of the question. As for the computer terminals and buildings and bears, oh my! I just have to laugh. Really. You know, I also noticed the buildings. I noticed the lack of vegitation. I thougth the radiated water idea was silly. I hate the VATS slow mo effect. I was surprised to find lots of edible food all around. I... well... you get the picture. So what? I had a great time playing the game. I enjoyed many many hours of exploration. Yeah, there were a lot of ghouls out in that Red Racer(?) factory. Statistically, all those Chinese infiltrators should not have been turned into ghouls, right? I wish I had an icon for shaking my head, chuckling. Yeah, I know, suspend disbelief, don't hoist it over a chasm. I know, the science and realism and yada yada. I'm going to quote a post made by another member on these boards. A good case in point is that, while I agree with this post, I'm not sure I agree about ammo weight and eating. However, the difference is that I won't be angry if there's no ammo weight. I won't be angry whether they force us to eat or not. In fact, I'm more likely to be angry if the design becomes overly burdensome to the player. I don't want to face starvation if I don't eat every five minutes of real time. Ultimately, I don't think successful game design is for the connoisseur. Or, to put it another way, it's for the connoisseur, but the target audience is made up of folks who, while they might like a gourmet meal at a 5 star restaurant, can enjoy a hot dog at the ball park. Overlooking the small things in order to enjoy what the game is not a bad thing. As far as the standing buildings, I noticed them and found them curious the very first time I entered the wasteland. If Obsidian does something different, more 'realistic,' I'll be happy. ...But if they don't, I won't let that one little nagging thing destroy my experience.

So you guys aren't beating down the mobs, sticking Algernon's head on a stick, and slapping down a few brewskies within 45 minutes? ...And I thought you were 1337!

Here's my question, if the story talks about a big battle and you're alive at the end of it, is it "lulz. Look at the dead bodies they put all around us! I mean, they gave us text, that should be enough to let us know there was a battle." The design teams have always used the art and graphics to help convey the story. What's so bad about going one step further? The folks complaining about the vignettes need to see them as something to augment writing. Attention to detail is a good thing. Using the environment as a tonic for the imagination is a good thing. Taking advantage of the medium is a good thing. Honest to goodness, I simply don't understand why this is a big deal. Maybe I missed the post somewhere up above that said that we shouldn't have any story at all because of vignettes? This animosity for them is just... strange. EDIT: I agree, once more, that they don't take the place of the story at all.