WriteGuard

My favorite internet username is probably Natalie Portmanteau. That's classic. I know someone whose tag was Daniel Plainviewsonic. Not quite as pithy. But Natalie Portman is hilarious. I still love the rap video she made on SNL where she told everyone to "Shut the **** up, suck my ****!" Coming from her, it sounded like gossamar song from angels.

First of all, congrats on portmanteau. So people articulate their knowledge of Portmanteaus. Very Jeopardy savvy of you. Love that word. Second, I want to see FO4 or any subsequent FO proginy be more of a brilliantly conceived multipurpose tool, a la Gerber or Leatherman. That'd sumtin'!

I played doom last night. 15 years later, and entertaining.

Are you guys going to have the same "War...war never ends...." voice actor? That seems to be a continuous phenomena over the course of the fallouts.

Agreed. But that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing the overall view of the game and the colored commentary. Factual, specific complaints about parts of the game are both valid and elucidating. @Oner: I see your point. I enjoyed some aspects of FO3 and hated others, regardless of my overall opinion of the game. Though, I disagree with your view of the ending. If we're looking at this game mimetically (through a scope of how close it is to the morals, values and reality of "real life") then the ending works. We are so often put into situations in life that we have no choice in, and regardless of what we do, we are judged, often harshly and negatively. This is a Catch-22. FO1&2 did do this better, though. It shouldn't matter how many soda bottles you collect for some crazy b!tch who lives under a freeway; that should be how you're remembered.

Sorry, I don't, at least in F3's case. It had the chance to impress me, but failed. You precisely made my point. By being unimpressed by FO3, you imbue a natural bias into the conversation. We're not necessarily talking about extremes (I LOVE it or HATE it), we're talking about a subtle bias that sways your overall perspective. I'm touching on something that's much larger than Fallout. Bias is something we all have. Whether it is intentional or not, our brains structure works on creating pattern recognition through descrimination.

I think this may represent the crux of the argument. If, like RPGMaster you had a generally bad first impression and experience with FO3, you are more apt to dismiss it and find fault. If you had a generally favorable first impression of FO3, or at least had "Fun" playing it, you're more apt to defend it, or at minimum, find value in some of it (more like me, and some other's represented here.) We all bring prejudices, consciously or unconsciously, into a situation. These prejudices color our view of FO3. Regardless of this, we all agree, at some basic level, with the following statement: Fallout 3 could've been a much better game and we hope FO4, FO:NLV are better games.

I established this specific strand to discuss the writing in Fallout 3. And, by and large, the discussion went well. Some good points were bandied on both sides of the proverbial trenches (i.e. support for some aspects of FO3 Vs. Complete dismissal of FO3's writing as crap middle schoolers could best). at some point it reverted to an all out smiting of Fallout 3. Oh well. But at the end of the day, this is a FO3 specific message board topic. We will lament of FO3 and it's flaws as long as this is the topic. criticism of that fact is misplaced.

I'm going to call it a day, and scour the Internet for people with Fallout tattoos and chuckle insoucently.

That's the whole point - F3 isn't a sequel, it just happens to share the same name and has a 3 by it. Its nothing like Fallout. I suggest you read the NMA review of it. Its fair, precise and quite witty. http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47347 I did, and very compelling. It's a good article that brings up fair criticism. "Compared to the first two Fallout games, Fallout 3 is a pale imitation that may anger many fans of the original games. However, comparing Fallout 3 to similar games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Gothic, Two Worlds, Assassins Creed, etc presents a much more favourable reaction. I think that it

Absolutely... FO3 is geared towards the console generation. I've played both and it's much more geared to the console rather than computer. That does irritate me, the fact that Fallout was always a computer game, and FO3 does seem console biased. But that's not enough for me to dismiss the game entirely.

Because most of the dialogues in fallout 1&2 were text-on-screen only anyway. I see no connection between quality of text and amount of voiceover, sorry. Unless it's the actors that write the text. It's simple. Imagine any of your favorite books that have been translated to screen. Much of the writing on the page that is memorable is lost in translation. While FO1/2's text base dialogue is witty and appealing, I imagine some of that is lost when you have producers, and sound men and actors all trying to recreate what one good writer originally intended. Or, it may simply be that the writers for Beth are worse than those in BIS or Interplay (Feel free to release simultaneous "No Sh!ts" at will for this point). in the end, I think some of the text-based humor gets lost in translation to a full-blown voice produced game. I still love the cafe of broken dreams from FO2. I think that's the zeitgeist of what was lost from FO1/2 to FO 3.

I agree with most of the points you make, and I believe your sense of loathing for both FO3 and Bethesda comes out of your perceived failure of their efforts to create a great Fallout game. This ergo comes from your love of the fallout series in general. For that, I both commend you for your commitment to the saga, as well as join you in considering FO a worthy game to give adulation to. But I think your complete dismissal of the writing is a bit total. -Yes I agree the writing is bad. Worse than FO 1 or 2 -They lack depth of storyline and dialogue That said, FO3 is a passable alternative to no sequel, or a sequel in an antiquated format. Maybe over time I have become inured to the bad writing in favor of enjoyable game play and the beautifully rendered environment. Maybe I more readily look for cogent and cohesive writing in the literature I read, not the games I play. This, though, is no excuse. My hopes are that sincere critics of the game are vociferous enough to sway the heavy handed writer's at Bethesda and I hope Obsidian learns a lesson from the sundry failures of FO3.

Yeah. By bringing in novice voice talent for some characters, you can more clearly differentiate characters. While what you said is cool (about the guy having a conversation with himself in threft), I'm sure there are thousands of decent voice actors who will work for nothing to be a part of a major production. I really want FO4 and possibly FO:NLV to have some half indecipherable regional dialects. Language would fall apart in the waste land. It would be cool trying to interact with post-apocalyptic sand people who just shout a lot. Bring back the whole tribal aspect of FO2. That was interesting.

Give me an example of an inspired interface please. Ease of use that maximizes the game's features while not detracting from the overall playability of the game. Examples: FO3 Pip Boy over F1/2 Underdeveloped PB FO3 Inventory selection over FO1/2 laborious item selection screens Not to be nit-picky, but clicking on those little red selector's in FO1/2 was downright annoying. To be fair, FO2 vastly improved game play over 1. Logistical issues like random encounters and combat were improved, and I can admit that BIS's FO3/VB Might have gone even further in improving interface. One thing that troubles me is the lack of interface between FO2 and Broth. of Steel. Game over game, I was unimpressed by the interface improvement (Except from 1 to 2).

You make an interesting case for lazy writing. I do agree the storyline is thin, but the plot moves more seamlessly than FO1&2. I like the guy who plays Mr. Burke and the sundry characters in Oblivion. It's problematic when he plays so many characters with lack of voice modulation/modification. And admittedly, when you use so few people to create so many characters, it comes across as lazy when they sound a like. Seth McFarland metaphysically criticized himself on Family Guy when The Dr. and Puterschmidt(SP?) had the same voice. It makes the case for more voice talent.

To both posters who said Van Buren was just a crudely alpha demo, I agree, but that's not the point. The point is in 2003 when the game was being created, BIS opted to stay with the same approach to the game, in terms of interface. And I think that of everything I liked about FO1&2, I liked the interface the least. It was prosaic and uninspired. The game's rich story, the vivid idea of a post-apocalyptic reality where good struggles daily against evil, this is the firs two game's legacy. And I think that brings us to the point we agree on. Aside from style and the game's world engine/interface, we agree that the storyline is thin and does not incorporate the same depth into the FO universe's canon that the other FO's did(or more aptly, it doesn't create the same rich canon). I only hope Obsidian delves deeper into a more realized storyline in NLV, and FO4 is more than the same. What I spoke to, more specifically, was the lack of wasteland to be visited. True, the quests in FO1&2 were great and free, but there was nothing to do in between the limited amount of cities. A shame. What you call a zoo, I see as an honest attempt to imagine the spaces in between what are left of organized groups of people. The ideas of random encounters and nomadic traders is neat; the monsters prowling would exist as well, as they've lost the bulk of their natural predators and searched everywhere for food.

There. I was about to say the same thing, just not that nicely. Agreed. But looking at and having played bits of the failed Van Buren (the original BIS attempt at FO3), it's clear to me that stylistically, the Beth version is much more visually stunning and eminently more playable. I don't ever think that was debated. Whether the completely realized BIS FO3 would've been written better is up for debate. When I first played FO3 I was a bit turned off by the very "Shoehorned" way the Fallout series was turned into an Elder Sctroll. But there is validity in thinking it worked on some levels. Specifically: -The wildly more enjoyable peregrination through the wastelands in 1st (or 3rd) person. -The experience of fallout is vividly improved and more actualized in the 3d environment. -More expansive and freer gameplay is allowed (as it is sought after by many players) I'm in no way saying Bethesda did the best possible job on FO3 as other may have. I don't even feel they did as well as they could've; but I'm happy to see FO realized in an epic, eminently playable world. IMO, I believe that aside from Bethesda's many shortcomings with this game, many complaints about Bethesda and their games (FO3, Oblivion, et al) come not in their specific failures, but in their drastic departure from the RPG games some here may enjoy more. There seems to be a bias toward RPG-style games that preserve the tennets of the genre. True RPG fans must see Bethesda's 1st person-ification of these games as more of an affront and a bastardization than most. As not a fan of RPG's per se, but rather the Fallout series, I am willing to overlook FO3 being Bethesd-ized; so long as they continue to improve the other, more glaring faults of the game. Notably, the lackluster dialogue, and the depth of all the quests. They also need to bring back the highly entertaining easter-egg style references and allusions to pop culture, like FO1&2 did. And if anyone fromt Obsidian is listening- the game is rated M for mature: let's bring back more of the sex, drugs and gambling that made FO1&2 fun.

I apologize for reviving an old topic in this thread; I was intrigued by the discussion of writing (or lack thereof) in Fallout 3. I agree that in most ways, the writing of Fallout 1/2 is superior, but I feel there are a few points the previous discussions missed: 1. There was a lack of differentiation in this board's argument between written/spoken dialogue of characters and the actual storyline itself. For the purposes of clarity, I will refer to the dialogue as dialogue, and the plot, character development, conflict etc.. as storyline development. As for the dialogue, I commend Bethesda for keeping dialogue simplistic: very few people in the wastes would be educated at all; oral language would dominate, and in F4 or F:NLV, I say dumb down the population even more. Sometimes I felt the dialogue was banal, and in some cases contrived, but I didn't think it wasn't as weak as other aspects of "writing" in F3. If anything, the dialogue should be more varied, including accents, and characters who are difficult to understand. I hate Borderlands, but at least they had characters with backwater pigeon speak. As for storyline development, the writing is solid enough. Plot line development in F3 is superior to F1&2 and is more cogent. I do feel side quests and secondary quests in F1&2 are more enjoyable and better written. 2. Fallout 3 is, for the lionshare, contains scripted, voiced dialogue. This is in stark contrast to the minimal voice work in fallout 1 & 2. While this is no excuse for the often low quality of the writing in F3, it does highlight some of the problems Bethesda had in creating all spoken dialogue. I found some of the most meaningful, creative and witty dialogue in F1&2 was text-on-screen only. I do abhor the minimal use of voice talent in F3. I'm sure Mr. Burke in F3 is the Grey Fox (and a number of other characters) from Oblivion. It makes it really boring when everyone looks and sounds the same. Big flaw. 3. It behooves us to keep in mind what context this discussion takes place: a video game. While many people in this board seem well read, or at least seem to appreciate literary elements in a good video game, I imagine the overwhelming population of VG players prefer graphics and playability over storyline. unfortunately, Bethesday (and to some degree Obsidian) need to do what's in the best interest of the people who supply the money- which is to create a profitable game. That means simplifying it a suitable enough amount to have some broad appeal. While that broad appeal is what offends most of us, it makes the game eminently more playable. We need to look at the accomplishment of F3 in it's context: we're talking about a game that cost tens of millions to create. If we were to compare the Fallout series to the movie industry, Fallout 3 might take on the role of a blockbuster, while F1&2 would be more niche, independent films. This creates a challenge for the creators: how to keep the game true to its "Indie" following, while making it profitable. Imagine if F3 was only enjoyable to the few hundred thousand die-hard fallout fans? Right, there would not be a F4 or New Las Vegas, or, eventually, a possible MMOG. I'm not sponsering selling out. I'm simply elucidating the fact that Bethesda probably had significant pressure to make certain decision which made the game, err, a bit more bland. Hopefully the Obsidian designers listen to this debate and keep a couple things in mind while crafting F:NLV: -Storyline is important. Start there. -Amazing graphics and a enormous sand box filled with baddies is great, but keep the edge that made the Fallout series famous. -Good dialogue is important and we will get bored if it is more of the same. If you are going to have expansive dialogue, have enough disparate voice talent. Take a page from the Rockstar playbook and pay them all minimum wage. We don't care. -Sidequests are what make the Fallout series great. Give us more thoughtfully crafted sidestory. -Writing aside, bring back gambling. Humbly Submitted, Writeguard

I apologize for reviving an old topic in this thread; I was intrigued by the discussion of writing (or lack thereof) in Fallout 3. I agree that in most ways, the writing of Fallout 1/2 is superior, but I feel there are a few points the previous discussions missed: 1. There was a lack of differentiation in this board's argument between written/spoken dialogue of characters and the actual storyline itself. For the purposes of clarity, I will refer to the dialogue as dialogue, and the plot, character development, conflict etc.. as storyline development. As for the dialogue, I commend Bethesda for keeping dialogue simplistic: very few people in the wastes would be educated at all; oral language would dominate, and in F4 or F:NLV, I say dumb down the population even more. Sometimes I felt the dialogue was banal, and in some cases contrived, but I didn't think it wasn't as weak as other aspects of "writing" in F3. If anything, the dialogue should be more varied, including accents, and characters who are difficult to understand. I hate Borderlands, but at least they had characters with backwater pigeon speak. As for storyline development, the writing is solid enough. Plot line development in F3 is superior to F1&2 and is more cogent. I do feel side quests and secondary quests in F1&2 are more enjoyable and better written. 2. Fallout 3 is, for the lionshare, contains scripted, voiced dialogue. This is in stark contrast to the minimal voice work in fallout 1 & 2. While this is no excuse for the often low quality of the writing in F3, it does highlight some of the problems Bethesda had in creating all spoken dialogue. I found some of the most meaningful, creative and witty dialogue in F1&2 was text-on-screen only. I do abhor the minimal use of voice talent in F3. I'm sure Mr. Burke in F3 is the Grey Fox (and a number of other characters) from Oblivion. It makes it really boring when everyone looks and sounds the same. Big flaw. 3. It behooves us to keep in mind what context this discussion takes place: a video game. While many people in this board seem well read, or at least seem to appreciate literary elements in a good video game, I imagine the overwhelming population of VG players prefer graphics and playability over storyline. unfortunately, Bethesday (and to some degree Obsidian) need to do what's in the best interest of the people who supply the money- which is to create a profitable game. That means simplifying it a suitable enough amount to have some broad appeal. While that broad appeal is what offends most of us, it makes the game eminently more playable. We need to look at the accomplishment of F3 in it's context: we're talking about a game that cost tens of millions to create. If we were to compare the Fallout series to the movie industry, Fallout 3 might take on the role of a blockbuster, while F1&2 would be more niche, independent films. This creates a challenge for the creators: how to keep the game true to its "Indie" following, while making it profitable. Imagine if F3 was only enjoyable to the few hundred thousand die-hard fallout fans? Right, there would not be a F4 or New Las Vegas, or, eventually, a possible MMOG. I'm not sponsering selling out. I'm simply elucidating the fact that Bethesda probably had significant pressure to make certain decision which made the game, err, a bit more bland. Hopefully the Obsidian designers listen to this debate and keep a couple things in mind while crafting F:NLV: -Storyline is important. Start there. -Amazing graphics and a enormous sand box filled with baddies is great, but keep the edge that made the Fallout series famous. -Good dialogue is important and we will get bored if it is more of the same. If you are going to have expansive dialogue, have enough disparate voice talent. Take a page from the Rockstar playbook and pay them all minimum wage. We don't care. -Sidequests are what make the Fallout series great. Give us more thoughtfully crafted sidestory. -Writing aside, bring back gambling. Humbly Submitted, Writeguard