Fallout 3

[Gorgon]

The weapons had 'health' in the old fallouts as well.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

In the interest of not bogging down this thread with quote games which lead nowhere and lose focus... newc, I didn't say there weren't ruined wooden buildings; just that should have been *some* measure of decay, or perhaps a bit more of it. From what I played it seemed to even out somewhat, but the idea of maintaining a certain visual identity eventually leads to wonder how time seems to have had little effect over some things. Of course, if it's not something that is particularly jarring to you, I undestand and respect that.

 

So it doesn't bother you, specifically. Fine.

 

Yes, good point as well. But as I'm sure you'd agree, discussing vegetation would be seen by many as a "silly complaint" as well, would it not? Which does make it hard to properly debate the function of PA aesthetics as they relate to previous Fallouts and moving far into the future.

 

It's not so much a quibble about whatever quality, age or type of polygonal wood was used; or that I am all hot and bothered. I was simply disagreeing with Grom's idea that Fallout's setting was implausible and as such, anything that tags along for the ride is implausible as well and should not be held up to any such scrutiny.

[poolofpoo]

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.

Cheers

MC

 

that's just silly, the m16 was probably one of the worst rifles ever made when it first hit the market:

 

 

"The major problem of the M-16's jamming can be traced to an idea that the then Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara and some of his top Generals got; Since there were so much old ball power left from WW-1, WW-2 and the Korean War, why not substitute the original powder used in the 5.56mm round with this old ball power? That's what they did against the advice of Mr. Eugene Stoner; the iventor of the weapon. This change upped the cyclic-rate of fire from about 300 rounds per minute to well over 1,000rpm! This much higher chamber pressure was the cause of much higher cyclic-rate which in turn was the cause of many double-feeds; no-feeds; failure to feed; failure to extract and worst, rim-sheers! The ball powder also left considerable residue after firing which contributed to clogging the weapon and especially choking off the thin gas tube which directed cartridge gases to operate the weapon.

 

Making matters worse was the fact that it was deployed in the middle of a war. Something that you don't do unless you absolutely have to.

 

Initially troops in Vietnam were told that the M-16 needed no cleaning and those early production M-16s were issued to the troops in the field without any sort of cleaning kit.

 

Still another problem was that when a jam occured in those early weapons, because of the unique design features of the M-16 soldiers and Marines could not clear the jammed round easily."

 

 

the gas tube is/was probably one tenth of that of a normal automatic rifle, it's an extreme design flaw

Edited November 20, 2008 by poolofpoo

[Gorgon]

Yes, but thats a history lesson. Most of those problems were solved.

[kalniel]

So how does the Alien Blaster work?

[poolofpoo]

Yes, but thats a history lesson. Most of those problems were solved.

 

so what, i'm commenting on "In fact, the M16 was deliberately designed to address maintenance issues in tropical climates. It's not a jam-prone weapon..."

[Gromnir]

"I was simply disagreeing with Grom's idea that Fallout's setting was implausible and as such, anything that tags along for the ride is implausible as well and should not be held up to any such scrutiny."

 

 

is pretty much impossible to argue reality/plausibility of any fo game... whether it be setting or combat or anything else. the way some fo fans wanna pick at some issues o' plausibility like an anorexic with ocd waffling at a salad bar is funny. sad, but funny.

 

wooden houses bother, but newcs and Gromnir's list o' stuff don't? fo setting is 'posed to be funny... is 'posed to make you laugh. sure, there is a gritty aspect to it, but you might as well argue realism and plausibility of the Flinstones or Jetsons, 'cause fo is just as cartoony... simply darker.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

wooden houses bother, but newcs and Gromnir's list o' stuff don't?

 

It does; I agree with pretty much all complaints you've shared. My argument was different, though, which I already explained.

 

 

sure, there is a gritty aspect to it, but you might as well argue realism and plausibility of the Flinstones or Jetsons, 'cause fo is just as cartoony... simply darker.

 

Fine, I'll shut up and let others carry on. No point in discussing something no one cares about or thinks is ridiculous.

[Rosbjerg]

I thought it was an interesting argument..

 

-

 

It's been a few weeks since I played FO3, can't seem to muster the entusiasm.

[Dark_Raven]

I like the retro 50's look and feel of the game.

[Aram]

The thing about RPGs with guns that I never understood is how two weapons firing the same cartridge can have different damage ratings.

[poolofpoo]

The thing about RPGs with guns that I never understood is how two weapons firing the same cartridge can have different damage ratings.

 

 

because damage depends on both mass and velocity

[Aristes]

I'm closing in on my second run. That's probably around 100 hours of gameplay between two runs that were more or less concurrent, and then a fresh run after I finished the first time. My addiction to the game is starting to wane, but I think after 100 hours, the title has been more than worth what I paid for it. I imagine I'll start another fresh run later, probably play it on medium settings, and goof around. I've played this latest one on Very Hard throughout and I've gone a roll playing route by trying to get my stats and skills as high as I could. I made an early mistake, but I think I've got everything pretty damned high, including several 10s in stats and many 100s in skill. It was a fabulous waste of perks, though. I think I would focus on VATS perks next time, since you don't really need to invest in a large variety of skills and even without focusing on skill perks you end up with a lot of high skills by the time you hit 20. Barter is pointless. Even on very hard, I didn't need anything more than the points I naturally gained in barter and ended with well over 10k bottle caps.

 

I don't think the game is too easy on very hard. Sure, the humans and super mutants in later stages tend to be pushovers. The beasts tend to be a pain, however. In particular, the largest rad scorpions, yao guai, and deathclaws cause me grief. Before someone beats his chest and says that he went through the game armed with nothing better than a butter knife and clothed in nothing more than sexy nightwear, let me just say this: I don't care. You are gamerzilla. You are a real man amongst men. You are the god to whom gamers pray. Whatever. I got through the Yao Guai tunnels/den and the Deathclaw sanctuary without reloads, but not without planning my moves. I couldn't, at the hardest setting, go in with guns blazing and just mop the floor. I had to be careful about sneaking and choosing my targets. It was time consuming, relatively speaking, to make sure I gave myself plenty of room to maneuver. With that in mind, I think the difficulty was just fine. If you're careful, you'll live. I like that. If difficult enough means several reloads, then I'll take easy any day.

 

On the other hand, different perks would have made combat much easier, but I like being able to pick every lock, get every dialogue option, hack every computer, use the vast majority of weapons, make the most out of every stimpack, and repair to the max on every item. For that reason, roll playing, that is, I eschewed combat in favor of skills. I guess I might have been one of the folks griping about game difficulty otherwise.

 

As far as your beefs, DR, I agree with you on most of them. I do think that weightless money isn't much better than weightless ammo, but Fallout 3 has both weightless ammo and money, so go figure. While it didn't have a big impact, I have to be honest and say that the way Bethesda chose which buildings survived and which didn't struck me as strange while I played. Some of it was clearly design constraints. You know, subways/sewers to mask zone changes and rubble to create barriers. I had no issue with those. I did think it was kind of funny that the Washington Monument, the Capitol Building, and the Lincoln Memorial all managed to remain more or less intact in a city was allegedly the target of multiple warheads. Once again, wasn't a huge stumbling block, but it really did draw my attention.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Thanks for the further impressions, Aristes (and everyone else that contributed with some). I suspect it will be a long time before I can get my gaming PC back up again, though. As for the rest you've mentioned, Aristes, it will probably remain a personal thing. I have no problem with enjoying what Fallout 3 has to offer, but of course, some things draw my attention more than others. I wouldn't bring up immersion as it is regarded by many, but truly, if I go by its definition - the author's ability to draw me into his or her fiction - then I suspect Fallout 3 wouldn't convince me as much as the first title in the series did. Not in some rose-tinted way, mind; it's just that the more a concept is expanded upon, the more you risk dilluting it and lose track of the original vision. And I've nearly always experienced that in sequels. Fallout 3's likely a good title but it's not what I'd call a worthy successor; at best, it is a Fallout title - just a different kind of Fallout. It seems to work best as a vision for those who never cared much for the original one.

 

Now I need to whore myself out to fix my computer.

[Gromnir]

three points:

 

1) immersion... sucks.

 

is great if you can get "immersion", but immersion in and of itself is a highly personalized gestalt of myriad gameplay and story elements. an element in fo3 that kills immersion for you may be bearable in Widget Frenzy, or some other such game. can't find 10 people that has same exact notions as to what is necessary for immersion in any given game, much less find some kinda Truth that might be applied to all games... or even all crpgs.

 

2) unlimited ammo in fo3 changes tactics not at all... or so little as to be meaningless.

 

fast travel makes weighted ammo near meaningless. developers no doubt realize that with fast travel and weighted ammo you simply has folks taking ridiculous number o' fast trips back to megaton or tenpenny or wherever else you got your 1007 stashed. developers no doubt realize that all that weighted ammo would accomplish is some general increase in tedium for most players. such aspects, like required eating, has near universal been dropped from game development. sure, is a balance act for developers... 'cause what is tedious for Gromnir may be immersive for Diogo, but end result is that such stuff likes weighted caps and ammo, things that not genuine add to tactics of fo3 for any player with 2 neurons to rub together, is probable gonna get dropped.

 

3) flinstones

 

am still surprised by how many folks not see humor o' the fallout setting. is like flinstones. stegosauruses AND tyrannosauruses rex in same period? those dinosaurs not exist together... much less co-exist with mastadons and humans. my goodness, how can the writers o' the flinstones show face in public? fo is funny. is satirical and comic. sure, is dark and gritty too, but setting itself is some hodge-podge of b-movie 1950s sci-fi shtick. argue flinstones. is maybe not surprising that people who is most passionate about fo, is least capable in grasping the Ha Ha!

 

am recalling when we first saw Kill Bill in theatre. Gromnir and friend were the only folks laughing in the entire theatre... is like we were the only folks who recognized that movie were so intentional over-the-top as to funny. perhaps everybody else watching the film were hardcore Tarentino fans.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Aram]

The thing about RPGs with guns that I never understood is how two weapons firing the same cartridge can have different damage ratings.

 

 

because damage depends on both mass and velocity

So why would a .223 pistol do more damage than a .223 rifle.

[Hurlshort]

The thing about RPGs with guns that I never understood is how two weapons firing the same cartridge can have different damage ratings.

 

 

because damage depends on both mass and velocity

So why would a .223 pistol do more damage than a .223 rifle.

 

How do you explain why one sword does more damage than another? It's a game play mechanic, it's better not to think too hard about it.

[Aram]

The thing about RPGs with guns that I never understood is how two weapons firing the same cartridge can have different damage ratings.

 

 

because damage depends on both mass and velocity

So why would a .223 pistol do more damage than a .223 rifle.

 

How do you explain why one sword does more damage than another? It's a game play mechanic, it's better not to think too hard about it.

They're magic swords.

[Gorgon]

Well wouldn't a bullet shot from a rifled barrel have picked up more speed upon exit than one shot from a pistol.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Gorgon

[Arkan]

am recalling when we first saw Kill Bill in theatre. Gromnir and friend were the only folks laughing in the entire theatre... is like we were the only folks who recognized that movie were so intentional over-the-top as to funny. perhaps everybody else watching the film were hardcore Tarentino fans.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Now that you mention it, I don't recall laughing out loud at the movie, but it always seemed to me that the purpose of the movie was to be over the top as it was, kind of paying homage to similar movies that came before it.

 

As for funny over the top, Kung Fu Hustle was much better

[Diogo Ribeiro]

is great if you can get "immersion", but immersion in and of itself is a highly personalized gestalt of myriad gameplay and story elements.

 

Sure. Don't expect everyone else to share my expectations or perspectives.

 

 

sure, is a balance act for developers... 'cause what is tedious for Gromnir may be immersive for Diogo

 

Thought I certainly could have linked both, whatever argument I made regarding immersion was meant to be unrelated to the weightless ammo, although they may have come off as one and the same in the discussion. And I'm sure as far as balancing acts go, weightless ammo is a boon for hoarding packrats. But is the same logic extended to mines? Grenades? Healing items? And if not, why not? And would it be as meaningless if healing items were weightless as well?

Edited November 21, 2008 by Diogo Ribeiro

[Gromnir]

stimpacks is weightless... and so is all addictive and non-addictive drugs. blood packs is an exception, but a quest makes those valuable later in game. *shrug* as we noted already, is a balancing act. is no clear distinguishing line 'tween what adds and what detracts. you may (or may not) thinks food and requisite eating makes game better. others disagree. so, if you got a strength stat, and you wanna give value to that stat beyond combat, how to do? some small boon for inventory management? is a trifling matter, but if you is stuck with special and you wanna take some half-arsed stab at balancing... how to make strength useful, and at same time prevent game from becoming tedious for the great mass o' players.

 

how it comes back to immersion? easy, 'cause immersion is gestalt. is a combo o' balancing and story plausibility and 1000 other things. you bring up immersion? you pretty much asking for the kitchen sink. the tactical considerations of weighted ammo with fast travel is trivialized to near meaningless... so all you got is immersion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited November 21, 2008 by Gromnir

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fine, I'll stop being a borish, misguided youth.

[mkreku]

So why would a .223 pistol do more damage than a .223 rifle.

Huh? You really should know this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity

 

Barrel length can affect the kinetic energy transmitted to the bullet.

[alanschu]

Would a slower bullet be more damaging than a faster one though?

 

I could see "yes" because it'll less easily penetrate a target and hence have a more erratic path through the target, causing residual damage.

 

By the same token, I would guess (in my ignorance) that a faster bullet would likely have better armor penetrating qualities. At the same time, wouldn't a really fast bullet with a small mass have a chance of shattering after penetration, causing a copious amount of tissue damage than a clean penetration?