Fallout 3

[Magister Lajciak]

I'm sure I'd enjoy this game if I could actually install it. Been trying all day and am now going to buy an Xbox instead.

 

Just out of interest, what seems to be the problem in the installation process?

[Monte Carlo]

There are a number of common issues, not least SecuROM, the need to run MSConfig and disable all startup apps and renaming your install shield manually...

 

I think I'm making some progress, but lots of people have had install issues. And I'm running a higher-than-minimum-specs gaming rig with a GeForce 9800 video card and bags of memory...

 

Cheers

MC

[Dark_Raven]

I finally got a companion. A paladin named Cross I think it is. I also am able to wear power armor. Now I'm awesome looking.

[Nick_i_am]

So wait, are you enjoying Fallout 3 ms.FALLOUT IN NAME ONLY?

[Arkan]

I think Bethesda made a mistake in two areas.

 

1. increase the amount of XP you get while playing on the hard difficulty setting. I'm at level 10 already and haven't started the main quest yet.

 

2. Level 20 exp cap. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem after 1 is fixed, but you hit the cap halfway through the plot or sooner.

[random n00b]

Nuking a city full of innocent people isn't controversial enough to you? Selling children to slavery isn't controversial enough to you?

You know, that's exactly the wrong attitude. It shouldn't be controversial because, you know, it's a game. It's not real. It's no different from killing children in your mind, and far less worrisome. Catering and bowing down to the absurd sensibilities of idiots who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality puts one at the same level of those idiots. And, for many people, controversy is just another hobby.

 

And then there's the silly double standards you mention, and the fact that seems to have escaped Todd & Co, that nuking a town will result in the deaths of the children therein. Oh wait, it won't - they have godmode!

 

But the saddest part is that we are actually going backwards. You had functional hookers (fade to black, at least), child killing and other naughty things in both FO1&2... but stuff got toned down for 3, so the folks with the short tempers and zero tolerance don't get too angry.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's not real. It's no different from killing children in your mind, and far less worrisome.

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

It's not real. It's no different from killing children in your mind, and far less worrisome.

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

Not necessarily pervert, but I get your point.

 

Point is, violence in games makes real violence seem less real (for most people). There are limits and I have no problem with them.

[Hurlshort]

There is a matter of good taste, and I fail to see how headshotting children is in good taste.

[H]

There is a matter of good taste, and I fail to see how headshotting children is in good taste.

I fail to see how having immortal children is in good taste. Why is a child's life more valuable than the life of an adult? I just don't get it. There is something very hypocritic about a game that has a perk like Bloody Mess and allows you to detonate nukes, but at the same time labels killing the little ones as an unforgivable crime.

[random n00b]

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

Most likely, yes. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to tell people what they can or cannot think. Do you get it yet?

 

 

There is a matter of good taste, and I fail to see how headshotting children is in good taste.

Yeah, because everything else in FO3 is becoming of the most highly refined taste, and therefore such a thing would obviously be out of place! Edited November 6, 2008 by random n00b

[Wrath of Dagon]

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

Most likely, yes. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to tell people what they can or cannot think. Do you get it yet?

No, I don't.

[Maria Caliban]

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

Most likely, yes. But that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to tell people what they can or cannot think. Do you get it yet?

 

And Bethesada doesn't have to cater to tastes they find unpleasant.

 

Yes, in the real world, setting off an atomic bomb is worse than killing a child. In a game, pressing a button and seeing an explosion is not as bad as watching a child getting their head blown off in slow motion.

[Aristes]

I think folks should be able to kill children in these games, just like tv shows and movies depict murder and books describe grisly scenes of rape and whatnot. However, I fail to see why it's entertaining. Of course, I've virtually never been able to finish a game playing an evil character. I've known folks who like playing evil and they didn't strike me as evil in real life, so go figure.

 

I don't know if it's a good taste question or not, but I think Hurlshot has the right idea. I would just say maybe that I can't understand how it's entertaining. Good taste or not, murdering children in a game just doesn't seem to make much sense. I guess folks just like being able to vent their "eveeeeel" frustrations in a safe setting? Hey, it's better than killing children in real life, so knock yourself out.

[Gromnir]

[quote name='H

[Gorgon]

There is a matter of good taste, and I fail to see how headshotting children is in good taste.

FO 2 didn't have any children at all for that same reason, if you patched them back, you could blow their brains out. Although with FO 3 graphics, that is heads popping left and right like mellons, it would have been several miles over the top.

 

People complain of the lack of sex with hookers. I agree that the game as a whole looks way too sanitized, the griminess of New Reno is nowhere to be found.

 

Now personally I would have been satisfied with nudity, in game preferably. I mean what else are you going to do, a 'minigame'. Move the mouse for vector, CTRL for throttle... Don't think so.

[Monte Carlo]

OK, it's taken me all day to get the thing working, but now it is I suggest that it's a game of rare beauty. It's like an Italian sports car... horribly made but definitely worth the ride all the same. I finally realised why I spent the extra money on a decent video card - first time in ages I've just walked around a game just enjoying the scenery.

 

Anyway, it does beg the question - why couldn't they make their fantasy RPGs as good as this? Am looking forward to VATS with axes, shield bashes, horned helmet goring (etc).

 

Cheers

MC

[random n00b]

No, I don't.

Ah, well. It was worth a shot - you'll have to live not understanding, then... I don't think I can help you if you fail to realize that people are free to think whatever they wish, regardless of how sick and perverted you deem it to be.

 

 

And Bethesada doesn't have to cater to tastes they find unpleasant.

That's right. They don't "have" to do anything. They don't have to make their game internally consistent, they don't have to try and think of something better than lame workarounds for "difficult" problems, they don't have to be brave and go with what they believe should be in an RPG, as opposed to what other people think - people which will, most likely, never play their game at all.

 

Yep, they don't have to do anything. But not doing anything isn't the best way to do great games.

 

 

Yes, in the real world, setting off an atomic bomb is worse than killing a child. In a game, pressing a button and seeing an explosion is not as bad as watching a child getting their head blown off in slow motion.

"Isn't as bad"? So, all of the content in the game, including (but not limited to) using nuclear weapons on innocent people is just fine, but shooting kids isn't? Care to explain why? Where does this "totally unacceptable" business begin? Did I mention that these kids are NOT REAL? That all this utter moral perversity is imaginary? That there is no harm being done, to anyone, what-so-ever? Please, please, show me your uncanny moral compass that helps you find your way, the right way, on the unforgiving sea of fictional entertainment.

 

Bear in mind that in FO/2 you were not forced to kill any children, nor was it the point or focus of the game, and it didn't return any particularly remarkable benefits. Further, you were actually discouraged from doing so, in a way that worked ingame. THAT is good design.

 

 

FO 2 didn't have any children at all for that same reason

That was the Euro version only, if I'm not mistaken. Edited November 6, 2008 by random n00b

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, I don't.

Ah, well. It was worth a shot - you'll have to live not understanding, then... I don't think I can help you if you fail to realize that people are free to think whatever they wish, regardless of how sick and perverted you deem it to be.

They may be free to think whatever, but there's certainly no reason to pander to them.

[Aristes]

I've been wondering the same thing, Monte Carlo. I enjoyed Oblivion, but it just seemed empty and the fantasy world was so remote. It really seems to me that Bethesda was desperately in need of a real world setting to take advantage of their talent. This isn't just a pretty game. It's a sandbox game where the scenery is its own reward and the exploration has real meaning. The tidbits of American history and perspective are real treasures. I laughed out loud at the line about Abraham Lincoln being a great president and Madison being a mediocre president. ...Or the fact that I walked around with Button's wig on my head for so long, switching it around between talking and combat. Bethesda did a great job with this title.

[random n00b]

They may be free to think whatever, but there's certainly no reason to pander to them.

Of course there isn't - that's why I'm not asking for a game about slaughtering infants, or even one that rewards that course of action. All I want is some internal consistency, and an effort on the developers' part to preserve suspension of disbelief.

 

I suppose the game panders to serial killers, by your logic, then?

[LostStraw]

And Bethesada doesn't have to cater to tastes they find unpleasant.

 

Yes, in the real world, setting off an atomic bomb is worse than killing a child. In a game, pressing a button and seeing an explosion is not as bad as watching a child getting their head blown off in slow motion.

There's no reason why the children deaths would have to be gory like the others -- or even have any blood effects at all for that matter. Some people would still complain but they would be fewer in number I'm sure. Arguing that you wanted to see some child's headless body spurting blood everywhere wouldn't win you any popularity contests.

 

I'm actually against the excessive gore found in Fallout 3. Some of the trailers have even made me feel a bit queasy.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I suppose the game panders to serial killers, by your logic, then?

Serial killers are not the only ones who kill adults, child killers are the only ones who kill children intentionally though.

[random n00b]

I suppose the game panders to serial killers, by your logic, then?

Serial killers are not the only ones who kill adults, child killers are the only ones who kill children intentionally though.

Weak. Not only you can roleplay a serial killer in FO3 (so the game potentially panders to serial killers, by your innuendos), but there are instances where soldiers will have to kill children in self-defense IRL... ever heard of child soldiers? You are grasping at straws.

[Strix]

And anyone who thinks about killing children in his mind is one sick pervert.

 

I disagree.