Fallout 3

[Walsingham]

I do think there were bizarrely few perks. I mean, why cut down the existing ones in the first place? There there are all the location perks,which could happen such as at the Dunwich building *big spoiler alert*:

You could have something which makes hounds of tindalos spontaneously appear sometimes in VATS and rip out your spleen

 

 

Overall the thing which grates most is the lack of specificity in character building. You can pretty much get everything you need in one character, and can't go nuts in any one area. I remember *puffs on pipe* using rifles at mad distances due to having small arms 175% or whatever. Now you get to 100 and that's it.

[Aristes]

the basic problem with that review is the basic problem of every die-hard fanboy rant against Fallout 3: they can't seperate the wood from the frakking trees & perfectly sensible criticisms that can be levelled against the game (and there are many) get lost in the vitriol against anything and everything.

 

This is my biggest problem. When I see the lists of complaints, I'll often agree with many of them. The disconnect is someone will cite something like, say, inventory control as a major detraction from the game. ...But, even though I can see their point about inventory control, I can't understand why it's such a huge problem with the game.

 

Some of these things are certainly big issues for some folks, and I can understand and respect that. However, most of the time, the list of issues contain such picayunish details that I have to wonder why someone would cite them in the first place. Even worse, some of the details that folks present as part of a review in comparing FO3 with the previous titles are things that detracted from those titles as well.

 

For example, if Fallout 1's inventory and trade between the PC and companions were perfect, why did BIS change it for Fallout 2? ...And all three games forced players to decide on what to take and what to leave. Sure there are tons of junky items. That's not a design flaw. I rather like it. If you, as the player, fill up your packs with paperweights, then I have very little sympathy that you didn't have room for better stuff.

 

Another example is difficulty. Fallout 3 is relatively easier than Fallouts 1 and 2. ...But that ease should be no less irritating than the completely capricious crits that were part and parcel of the first two Fallout games. Personally, I always loved the crits in Fallout, but you could, completely at random, take enough damage to kill your character several times.

 

The other type of complaint that just makes me laugh, and I'm not trying to start world war three over this but it's something a number of folks have said, is the charge that it's not really a Fallout game. Some folks actually made these statements before the game shipped. What the hell?

 

Bethesda bought the license. It's a Fallout game. Whether some folks like it or not, it's Fallout 3. Sure, some diehard fans hate the fact that it sports the '3' in the title, but at least concede that many long time Fallout fans are perfectly comfortable with taking in the new title as part of the Fallout family. At least understand that we long time Fallout fans who loved the first two games are going to the minority of Fallout fans in the future. From now on, like it or not, Fallout 3 is the Fallout franchise.

 

You want another Fallout game with an isometric view, better and more dialogue, and the same skills and perks? So do I. We can't always get what we want. ...But I'll gladly take Fallout 3 and hope for a Fallout 4.

 

It's hard to wade through the sheer mass of petty little grievances to get to an honest discussion about the actual game outside of the "hardcore Fallout" debate.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Another example is difficulty. Fallout 3 is relatively easier than Fallouts 1 and 2. ...But that ease should be no less irritating than the completely capricious crits that were part and parcel of the first two Fallout games.

 

So, the reasoning is what - if the originals were less than stellar in a given aspect, then there's no reason why Fallout 3 should be better in that regard? It's no less irritating, but it's equally appaling.

[Aristes]

The point is, don't hold up Fallout 1 and 2 as paragons of game design. Some folks find the game too easy, and thus they present it as an issue. However, if the complaint about ease comes as part of a diehard diatribe based on the differences between 3 and 1/2, then I contend that all three have their flaws.

 

Where folks have cited the ease as part of a review of the game in its own right, without invoking the originals, then I don't have an issue.

 

For my own part, however, I don't think Fallout 3 is so easy I don't enjoy it and I loved those random, reload causing crits in 1 and 2.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fair enough. Although there's something to be said about how, for instance, some ammo being weightless lessens the importance of prepping up for combat, and how VATS mode reduces damage dealt to characters (which I noticed even in my limited playtime).

[Aristes]

There certainly is a disconnect in the ammo weight. The big thing about ammo weight is that the ammunition is literally infinitely more valuable than the weapon itself. I can, and often do, carry over a thousand rounds for any particular weapon, and sometimes have several thousands of rounds of ammo altogether. For me, it's a huge boon finding ammo caches. Especially flamer or mini gun ammo, since I know it's pure profit with no drag on inventory. I don't see it as a significant detraction, but I can see why folks might not like it as much. Likewise, the VATS system makes combat much easier, although I tend not to use VATS as much as others seem to. It makes combat easier, but I'm too impatient to sit through the extended bullet time routines.

 

EDIT: Hell, mini-nukes are weightless and you can sell them for big money.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Aristes

[Walsingham]

The infinite ammo thing was just fething retarded. Since when did ammunition weigh nothing? I believe this was a concession to the console gamers, and being a funting adult I can grit my teeth and concede the move may have made sense. No-one wants to be constrained too much.

 

On the other hand weapons break down incredibly quickly, and saying stuff about it being 200 years old is reaching. There's no reason in the world why a factory fresh rifle won't work in 200 years time, if it's not abused. Hell, I've held a working Martini Henry which served in the Zulu wars! It's not an old lady. It's made of iron and brass.

 

This comes back to something wider reaching. Why do difficulty settings have to be so generic? i.e. just beef up the bad guys, make you weaker, etc? A far more interesting difficulty upgrade (I'm playing on highest grade now) would be to make running backwards much slower, and have ammunition weigh more. Mix it up a little bit.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The infinite ammo thing was just fething retarded. Since when did ammunition weigh nothing?

 

Yeah, I would have liked a more S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-like system where you really had to choose what weapons you were going to use and ration your ammunition accordingly.

[Walsingham]

The infinite ammo thing was just fething retarded. Since when did ammunition weigh nothing?

 

Yeah, I would have liked a more S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-like system where you really had to choose what weapons you were going to use and ration your ammunition accordingly.

 

I agree. Stalker had that aspect down well.

[Spider]

I think the weightless ammo is a boon. I keep running out of it often enough as it is. So being able to carry more is essential or I'd run out of ammo halfway through every area.

 

Maybe it gets stupid later on in the game, but I'm just exploring. I've done one mission on the main quest, then just side-stuff and I'm level 9 (and am using slow levelling or I'd have been higher).

[Hurlshort]

I'm happy with the weightless ammo because there is plenty of other junk that always caused me inventory issues. Of course, my strength was 3.

 

I really actually liked the weapon degradation. It kept me busy switching weapons and trying new things. I thought real life weapons do have issues with jamming if they are kept dirty?

[mkreku]

I thought real life weapons do have issues with jamming if they are kept dirty?

It depends on the weapon (of course), but the more advanced a weapon is, the more likely you're going to have a problem with it. For example, most American made weapons are very advanced and accurate. But as soon as they're dirty they start malfunctioning. The complete opposite, the AK-47, which consists of something like 15-20 parts (!) basically never malfunctions and is so leaky you can even fire it under water (or so the myth says)! But accuracy at 100+ meters is useless.

 

I remember being out in the field during my time in the Army and not cleaning the weapon (more than basic cleaning) for 12-16 days and firing probably thousands of rounds of (mostly blank) ammo. The Swedish AK-5 didn't have a problem with it at all. But when you got home.. damn it took a long time cleaning out all the crust.

[Gromnir]

having read vd's review, we is more certain than ever that hardcore fallout fans is the ones who really just don't "get" fallout. the post-apocalyptic world o' fallout is... funny. the folks who made fallout 2 got that. bethesda got it. why then can't nma and codex get it? fallout is not 'posed to be realistic or plausible. is 'posed to be the imagined/realized post-apocalyptic wasteland as dreamed up in b-movies and trashy novellas circa 1950's and early 1960s. giant insects and super mutants? vaults and the duck & cover shtick? camp. fallout is campy, and the terrible thing is that the hardcore fallout fans not ever seems to realize. those serious fans that were offended by joke encounters in fallout 2 is same ones complaining 'bout changes in fallout 3.

 

example: am recalling a recurring pre-release complaint we seen at codex regarding how bethesda's power armour "looked" in fo3. were wrong, just wrong. didn't look like fallout power armour at all. the thing is that bethesda's power armour design is actually more suitable for setting as a whole. a more art-deco inspired design makes much more sense in context of fallout setting. vd himself has mentioned how german-impressionism influenced fallout(perhaps too emphatically,) and there is few more enduring examples o' art-deco sensibilities and aesthetic than that which is depicted in the movie, Metropolis. bethesda's power armour clearly would be more at home in Metropolis than would original fallout power armour. ultimately, complaints 'bout look or feel o' setting from hardcore fallout fans causes us no end o' chuckles, 'cause is seeming ironic that fallout fans is the ones least likely to Get fallout. fallout were PERFECT, and all future incarnations is judged by how close they come to original? *snort* the original fallout were an often buggy and ridiculously unbalanced mess that were fun in spite of its flaws... much as is fo3... w/o all the bugs ('leastwise if you play on xbox.)

 

btw, is all sorta gameplay criticisms we got. 1 hour sleep heals all wounds, including crippled limbs? special stats and related skills is almost as unbalanced as they were in original fallout games. is far too easy to max a majority o' skills... which diminishes replay value. etc. got all kinda complaints, some o' which vd echos. am not having a problem with many o' his gameplay concerns. in fact, Gromnir has already mentioned that we likes this game in spite of its many flaws. much like mass effect and kotor, Gromnir likes fo3 in spite of obvious and numerous gameplay wackiness. is many reasons for a reasonable person to hate fo3 if they wish to. however, as soon as vd starts comparing atmosphere and setting and feel o' fallout 3 to earlier incarnations, Gromnir becomes torn 'tween inaudible groan and actual laughter.

 

oh, and vd complaint 'bout writing a survival guide 200 years after apocalypse were... retarded. is not like writing a book 'bout survival o' ice age, 200 years after end o' the ice age. the current dc watseland is still a very dangerous place. that being said, much o' the survival guide quest stuff were tongue-in-cheek; not meant to be taken serious. vd gets wrong on multiple levels. go figure, eh?

 

aside: weightless ammo not bother us much more than does weightless gold in typical crpg. unlike the original fallouts, games in which choosing to make an unarmed or melee combatant were voluntary gimping of character compared to the small guns & energy weapons builds, fallout 3 makes melee and unarmed fun and powerful... and there becomes an actual payoff for choosing to boost strength... other than ability to carry more 1007.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

I thought real life weapons do have issues with jamming if they are kept dirty?

It depends on the weapon (of course), but the more advanced a weapon is, the more likely you're going to have a problem with it. For example, most American made weapons are very advanced and accurate. But as soon as they're dirty they start malfunctioning. The complete opposite, the AK-47, which consists of something like 15-20 parts (!) basically never malfunctions and is so leaky you can even fire it under water (or so the myth says)! But accuracy at 100+ meters is useless.

 

Sorry to be a gun nerd but a few corrections. Firstly, American weapons don't start malfunctioning as soon as they're dirty. In fact, the M16 was deliberately designed to address maintenance issues in tropical climates. It's not a jam-prone weapon, it's got relatively few parts, opens like a shotgun and is made of composite materials. The M4 is better. The peripherals that American soldiers favour (optics, laser sights, grenade launchers etc), that sit on Picatinny rails, are another story. On that one you're mistaken.

 

Although the legendary AK47 is indeed one of the most durable firearms on earth, it's also accurate at ranges well over 100 metres. I find it difficult to slot the receiver back on the rear of the weapon after stripping (yes, it is ludicrously easy to field strip) but then again I'm cack-handed. Technically, most firearms should fire underwater until of course the ammunition is compromised by moisture.

 

As for Fallout, like Walsingham said, a well-preserved firearm should last indefinitely. It's quite simple technology and the most degradable part of the whole deal is the ammunition. That would be the problem - finding ammo thats not home-brewed and likely to explode in the breech. In 2077 soldiers would be better off fighting with a Museum preserved Lee-Enfield .303 SMLE than a laser rifle.

 

Cheers

MC

[Walsingham]

I think people sometimes get over-fixated on on the difference between the AKM and western rifles that can be sensitive. But I'd suggest it's like unfavourably comparing your girlfriend's robustness with that of a forty year old streetwalker. Firstly they're made for different jobs. Secondly being amde for different jobs has all kinds of issues, and means you're probably better off with your girlfriend. She's less likely to spit during thanksgiving dinner.

 

Reluctantly abandoning my analogy, first production models of the M-16 and SA80 were ****.They had all kinds of problems. Some were silly, like the ****ing handle falling off the '80. These have been ironed out in the updates. Some are simply a question of design options, not mistakes. Mechanical tolerances (the space you leave between working parts) can be small or big. They can't be both. SA80 chose small tolerances, leading to accuracy because it doesn't shake around. AKM chose big, leading to the ability to keep a sandwich tucked inside the receiver.

 

The point is that for anyone with the self-discipline to care for their tools, it's better to have a slightly finicky tool with better performance. Like mkreku said, he went home and he cleaned the bastard. But I'm sure he has the self-discipline to have cleaned it on exercise. Anyone who can't do that is either a guerrilla, living ina swamp, or a gang-member high on drugs. Neither group get much sympathy from me.

 

And I've wandered completely away fromm the point, somehow.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

fallout is not 'posed to be realistic or plausible. is 'posed to be the imagined/realized post-apocalyptic wasteland as dreamed up in b-movies and trashy novellas circa 1950's and early 1960s. giant insects and super mutants? vaults and the duck & cover shtick? camp.

 

I wouldn't argue for an arbitrary sense of plausibility; as such I don't really care about giant insects or such. But having wooden shacks still perfectly standing or computers still working 200 years after the war seems terribly farfetched even for Fallout's trademark goofiness.

 

aside: weightless ammo not bother us much more than does weightless gold in typical crpg.

 

Well, the typical crpg was and still is terribly dependent of combat. Weightless gold sounds like a reasonable concession to me since it's a fluctuating resource; it needs to be hoarded earlier on but mostly loses value as you progress. Fixating weight on it at earlier stages would just bog down starting characters until they no longer needed it (which also varies depending on players and their play style). On the other hand, while weightless ammo shares a similiar process (unskilled characters are just going to burn through it so they need to carry a good amount), it will never stop being usefull to those who invest in ranged weapons; and there's also the case for different weapon types. In the end I suspect it's something most people won't mull over, but it certainly removes some of the management associated with combat.

[mkreku]

Sorry to be a gun nerd but a few corrections. Firstly, American weapons don't start malfunctioning as soon as they're dirty. In fact, the M16 was deliberately designed to address maintenance issues in tropical climates. It's not a jam-prone weapon, it's got relatively few parts, opens like a shotgun and is made of composite materials.

In the Swedish army we had to learn the sounds, functions and maintenance of the M16, the AK-47 and the Swedish AK-5. My experience with these weapons was that the M16 was the most difficult to maintain AND the first one to give up in harsh (cold) conditions. The AK-5 didn't need as much maintenance but when it does, it takes a long time to finish. The AK-47.. Luckily I never really had to clean it, but I did notice it's easy to take apart and re-assemble.. with my gloves on! It's that simple! Because we didn't have enough ammo for it at the time, only a few of us were forced to clean it, but I did get to shoot with it. If you were able to consistently hit your target with it, you're either lucky or such a good shot you can compensate for the inaccuracy of the rifle (most unlikely). The M16 (despite its odd sights) and the AK-5 are 300+ meter weapons. The AK-47 definitely is not. The 100+ meters was an estimate of mine, but I do know you can't hit targets at 300 meters at least.

 

If you want, I can give you exact details of what went wrong with the M-16. First off, the magazines were made of aluminium, to save weight. But it also meant the magazines were fragile and in a hurried situation, when you quickly swapped magazines, chances were you'd bend the little flaps on top of the magazine (designed to manoeuvre the rounds correctly into the weapon), thus jamming up the weapon. Another thing was that because of its (relatively) tight build, it was difficult to get enough weapon oil in the weapon. In cold conditions, you need a lot of oil to keep the moisture out. If a tight weapon gets moist and it freezes, it's very, very difficult to get working again (unless you heat it, but that takes time). And what you call "composite materials" is actually plastic. You do know what happens to plastic in cold conditions, right?

 

Technically, most firearms should fire underwater until of course the ammunition is compromised by moisture.

Most weapons are a compromise between weight and strength. The metal surrounding the round in the weapon is the weapons strongest part, but it's still only designed to withstand the immediate impact of the explosion that occurs when you fire the weapon with an unobstructed barrel. If you insert something in the barrel of a weapon, chances are you'll get some sort of blowout. Perhaps a barrel explosion or you get the bolt mechanism planted in your face (not very likely, but it happens). The AK-47 leaks gasses on all sides, thus isn't as likely to exceed the internal pressure limit. Most other weapons are built much tighter and the added resistance of a water-filled barrel may actually be enough to damage the weapon. All theoretical though as I'm sure most people never even dream of firing a weapon underwater.

 

It's quite simple technology and the most degradable part of the whole deal is the ammunition.

When we fired the M-58 (internationally called FN MAG) in the Swedish army we actually had to change the barrel once.. Air-cooled and ammunition belt is a bad combination for inexperienced soldiers. Trust me, we had plenty of ammunition to go.

[newc0253]

I wouldn't argue for an arbitrary sense of plausibility; as such I don't really care about giant insects or such. But having wooden shacks still perfectly standing or computers still working 200 years after the war seems terribly farfetched even for Fallout's trademark goofiness.

 

iirc, there were still working computers and wooden shacks in Fallouts 1 & 2 - does this mean an 84 year old shack or a 164 year old computer system is plausible but a 200 year old shack or computer ain't?

 

like Gromnir says, the first two Fallout games were hardly paragons of realism: i find it hard to see how a rickety old shack is somehow more implausible than using chimp brains to build a robot, a suitcase-sized terraforming device or a ghoul with a tree on its head.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't defend realism in games, newc0253. And I'm also not defending nor justifying past Fallout titles, as the lulz was everywhere. However, in a setting where Vaults were used to house human beings and shield them from damage, you still see wooden structures unaffected by time's passing as if they were as sturdy as the Vaults. There should have been some measure of decay and/or more alternate building materials, not necessarily because it would be plausible (because from what I'm reading, most people confuse realism with plausibility) but because as time passes in every Fallout title, cities generally grow and adapt to the best of their abilities. 200 year old wood doesn't come off as a good choice of protection in a gameworld where vicious raiders and mutants roam the countryside.

[Amentep]

Wouldn't that depend on the wood?

 

I mean well preserved wood could still be usable after a length of time and be as good as new wood.

 

Besides, maybe all the old wood houses/shacks were made of petrified wood...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yes. That's where the realism would kick in I guess, but I'm actually fine with the abstraction it provides. It captures the feel of a wasteland (not that I ever saw one, if I discount my bedroom). But the more you situate it in the far future, the more it begs the question - when is it going to stop looking exactly the same as it did last time? And in this case, why does most of it still look exactly like it did 200 years ago? I actually felt it was a nice touch to include different locations (tower, hotel) as a form of settlement because those really do offer more protection, though.

[Amentep]

Yeah, but I guess though while playing the game I never really thought about it.

 

I mean there's a wooden structure (an old house that had a barn across the street) that I've watched slowly fall apart under its own weight over the last 20 years as its on my way to work (well the barn was torn down to make a subdivision, the old house is still there, partially collapsed). Looked like they were made in the 40s.

 

But that's the thing, its terribly bad conditions for wood locally (very moist, loads of termites). The Wasteland seems dry and arid, and no giant irradiated termites (so far). So maybe that's how wood can last that long.

 

Still doesn't seem like it should protect you from minigun fire though.

 

Actually its too bad you can't sneak into some of those building where the raiders are situated, set explosives on the support columns, leave and explode them, collapsing the buildings on the raiders.

[Gorgon]

It's always a choice between reliability and maximum accuracy. Although I seriously doubt rifles deteriorate with every shot fired, as in fallout. If you want maximum rate of fire outside of VATS you have to carry around lots of spare weapons.

 

I'm kinda disappointed in the lack of weapons, I mean just look at the fallout 2 collection

 

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Fallout_2_weapons

[Amentep]

Was there a lot of difference in the weapons in fallout2? I only remember ever using a handful of the options.

 

Man maybe I need to replay FO1 and FO2, my memory of them is hazy.

[newc0253]

There should have been some measure of decay and/or more alternate building materials, not necessarily because it would be plausible (because from what I'm reading, most people confuse realism with plausibility) but because as time passes in every Fallout title, cities generally grow and adapt to the best of their abilities. 200 year old wood doesn't come off as a good choice of protection in a gameworld where vicious raiders and mutants roam the countryside.

first of all, i don't know what game you played, but there were plenty of ruined wooden buildings in the version of Fallout 3 that i played.

 

secondly, yes, there were some intact wooden buildings (e.g. some of the houses in minefield). so what? i work in central london and can think of a half dozen wooden buildings within walking distance that date back to the 16th or 17th century.

 

thirdly, if there is a real complaint to be made, it's not the survival of wooden buildings but the relative lack of vegetation. if anything is implausible, it's the idea that the only surviving plants in the wasteland would be brush and tussock. more likely than not, somewhere like minefield would be covered in radioactive kudzu or something.

 

but that's a trivial matter because they were going for a wasteland/ruined city look and - to my mind - they acheived it. quibbling about the use of wood is the kind of silly complaint that distracts from proper debate.