Fallout 3

[Hell Kitty]

Oh... and the 3D guys, when you're done, we can talk about "What is an RPG"!

 

Whether something is 3D isn't a matter of opinion.

 

As for the main story, they seem to get worse with each Fallout installment.

[SpaceAlex]

I'm waiting for DLC to "fix" the ending before I finish this one. I've reached that point of the main quest (enclave part) where there is no turning back. The story is sort of forcing you to complete the main quest at this point. Knowing how it's all going to end (by rushing towards the ending), I've decided to stop playing for a while, despite the fact that I left quite a number of side quests left unfinished. It just doesn't make sense to go around doing other things when the tension between you, the BOS and the Enclave is so high.

[Tigranes]

The thing is, you can't continue after the main quest finishes. So you might as well.

[Rhomal]

The thing is, you can't continue after the main quest finishes. So you might as well.

 

If I reall, the 2nd DLC (or perhaps it is the 1st) is going to change that and make it so you can continue to play after the main quest like fo 1/2. Going to up the max lvl as well.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Rhomal

[Strix]

The thing is, you can't continue after the main quest finishes. So you might as well.

 

If I reall, the 2nd DLC (or perhaps it is the 1st) is going to change that and make it so you can continue to play after the main quest like fo 1/2. Going to up the max lvl as well.

 

Yeah.... bloody "nice" of them - charging for something that should have been in the original game from the beginning.

[Hurlshort]

The thing is, you can't continue after the main quest finishes. So you might as well.

 

If I reall, the 2nd DLC (or perhaps it is the 1st) is going to change that and make it so you can continue to play after the main quest like fo 1/2. Going to up the max lvl as well.

 

Yeah.... bloody "nice" of them - charging for something that should have been in the original game from the beginning.

 

There is an awful lot of game already there, I find it a bit hard to complain about the amount on content (sure, you ca complain about quality of content.)

 

I have no problem paying for DLC's because you have developers working on the product after it's been released already, and they deserve to be paid for their work. It's also a bit cheaper and faster than a full expansion.

[Nightshape]

DLC content tends to be stuff that falls under the banner of "We really wanted to do this, but time didn't exactly allow for it".

 

It also tends to extend a products life cycle and thus less trade in's of said products occur as a result.

 

Complaining that such content should have existed in the original product is a misunderstanding of the restrictions placed on development teams during a products development. It's extremely rare, infact you could say that it's never happend that the content which is intended from the initial stages of development actually makes it into the final product something is always cut to allow for a more important feature.

 

So in all fairness DLC is the addition of content which wouldn't have seen light of day if not for DLC itself, or expansions etc...

 

To argue that DLC is actually content which was missed for any other reason is stupid, infact saying they left it out as a simple matter of choice is down right wrong. Plus nobody makes anyone purchase the extra content. FO3 would most likely still be in development if certain initially planned content wasn't cut.

[Hurlshort]

Nightshape, your logic spits in the face of our misplaced sense of entitlement! Knock it off

[Nightshape]

It's not so much logic as having been sat in a meeting when DLC has been discussed. Alot of stuff does end up as "We'll try that with DLC" because it's outside of a games core focus, or core X.

 

I mean really, to put this in perspective, why didn't obsidian do the overland map for NWN 2 OC huh? I hate having to buy an expansion just for stuff which should have been in there on release... It's an idiotic assertion.

[Dark_Raven]

I still find things that I some how missed in the other games I played. Found a shopping center in a building that I thought wasn't accessable before.

[Slowtrain]

DLC content tends to be stuff that falls under the banner of "We really wanted to do this, but time didn't exactly allow for it".

 

It also tends to extend a products life cycle and thus less trade in's of said products occur as a result.

 

Complaining that such content should have existed in the original product is a misunderstanding of the restrictions placed on development teams during a products development. It's extremely rare, infact you could say that it's never happend that the content which is intended from the initial stages of development actually makes it into the final product something is always cut to allow for a more important feature.

 

So in all fairness DLC is the addition of content which wouldn't have seen light of day if not for DLC itself, or expansions etc...

 

To argue that DLC is actually content which was missed for any other reason is stupid, infact saying they left it out as a simple matter of choice is down right wrong. Plus nobody makes anyone purchase the extra content. FO3 would most likely still be in development if certain initially planned content wasn't cut.

 

 

Probably I am just too cynical, however, I will say that allowing a gamer to simply continue in free play after the main quest has finished, doesn't seem to me to be very much in line with something that the developers wanted to do but didn't have the time for. What is there to do? Just don't stop the game when the quest is done. If gamers want to keep playing in a gameworld in which the main story arc is essentially "over" that can be totally up to them. As long as they don't complain that the gameworld isn't as responsive to them anymore, there's no good reason not to let them continue.

 

Obviously in a linear game like half life or Deux Ex, there is no point to continuing past the ending because there is no "world" beyond the linear story. However in a sandbox game like Fallout 3 there is a huge world beyond the story and Fallout 3 even sells itself on that fact.

 

To me, personally, it seems suspiciously like a carrot that was specifically and intentionally left out of the game just so it could be added in a DLC as a bit of extra incentive for people to purchase said DLC. Even if somebody wasn't really interested in the new DLC content, they might be more willing to shell out money for the ability to play through the world without worrying about the ending of the main story arc. Especially with all the potential mods on the inevitable horizon.

 

But, like I said, I am just probably horribly cynical about things like that.

[Aristes]

It depends. If it's something as simple as what Crashgirl says, then I will be pretty cynical myself. In other words, if all Bethesda does is allow the player to ignore the current ending and continue, then I will call it what it would undoubtedly be: a slick ploy to make money without offering a damned thing to the customer. If they provide more, then it might be worth something. The difference is, in Nightshape's scenario, the player gets something they wanted to put in the original but did not have the resources to include. In Crashgirl's scenario, they claim a major change but it's literally no different since the player can currently ignore the main story line and explore without any penalties. Hell, the player can stop in virtually any place and go exploring and resume the main story at will. There are very few places where the player seems forced to complete something in the main story.

 

I don't mind giving Bethesda the benefit of the doubt, but I hope they don't give me a reason to doubt them.

[Hurlshort]

I think it's more that Bethesda wanted to force a certain ending for dramatic effect than any sinister DLC agenda. They were probably shocked at the backlash of that choice and are looking to address it quickly.

[Tigranes]

I agree with Hurlshot. The entire ending sequence was crying out wannabe-hollywood and I think they were just mesmerised by the prospect of having the game end so 'dramatically'. And if the story made sense, it would have been fine, too.

[Nightshape]

DLC content tends to be stuff that falls under the banner of "We really wanted to do this, but time didn't exactly allow for it".

 

It also tends to extend a products life cycle and thus less trade in's of said products occur as a result.

 

Complaining that such content should have existed in the original product is a misunderstanding of the restrictions placed on development teams during a products development. It's extremely rare, infact you could say that it's never happend that the content which is intended from the initial stages of development actually makes it into the final product something is always cut to allow for a more important feature.

 

So in all fairness DLC is the addition of content which wouldn't have seen light of day if not for DLC itself, or expansions etc...

 

To argue that DLC is actually content which was missed for any other reason is stupid, infact saying they left it out as a simple matter of choice is down right wrong. Plus nobody makes anyone purchase the extra content. FO3 would most likely still be in development if certain initially planned content wasn't cut.

 

 

Probably I am just too cynical, however, I will say that allowing a gamer to simply continue in free play after the main quest has finished, doesn't seem to me to be very much in line with something that the developers wanted to do but didn't have the time for. What is there to do? Just don't stop the game when the quest is done. If gamers want to keep playing in a gameworld in which the main story arc is essentially "over" that can be totally up to them. As long as they don't complain that the gameworld isn't as responsive to them anymore, there's no good reason not to let them continue.

 

Obviously in a linear game like half life or Deux Ex, there is no point to continuing past the ending because there is no "world" beyond the linear story. However in a sandbox game like Fallout 3 there is a huge world beyond the story and Fallout 3 even sells itself on that fact.

 

To me, personally, it seems suspiciously like a carrot that was specifically and intentionally left out of the game just so it could be added in a DLC as a bit of extra incentive for people to purchase said DLC. Even if somebody wasn't really interested in the new DLC content, they might be more willing to shell out money for the ability to play through the world without worrying about the ending of the main story arc. Especially with all the potential mods on the inevitable horizon.

 

But, like I said, I am just probably horribly cynical about things like that.

 

There are obviously reasons, naturally it could very well be that they saw the chance to make some money, it's also just as likely there is some technical reason, or some other reason, in this respect I see why you're cynical, but I am sure there is a valid reason.

 

Yes, I do believe making money is a valid reason, not one I like, but just as valid as any other.

[Slowtrain]

You guys are probably right.

 

The outcry over the shutdown ending is pretty predictable though. Bethesda should have anticipated it. There are threee things that should be obvious to anyone who has played computers games pver the years.

 

1) Gamers will scream about respawning enemies

 

2) Gamers will scream about forced time limits in non-linear games.

 

3) Gamers wil scream about shutdown endings in non-linear games.

 

 

If a developer plans to implement any of the above, they should be prepared for bellyaching.

 

I would be less cynical if they released a small free patch that removed the shutdown ending. But tacking it onto what appears to be purchase-only DLC just makes me roll my eyes.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Gamers will scream about a lot of things, not all of them worth screaming about. I still remember a certain uproar with Fallout's time-based main quest. That was a riot; there we were, presented with a gameworld that was anything but static in an important situation. But all people could muster was "Oh no, the game will react if I don't do a damn thing. That's too much pressure, I want to do and see everything! Not fair!". Hey, while we're at it, how about no penalties when standing still in combat? Damn those bugbears, I want to sit on my ass and look at those caves.

[Hell Kitty]

When it comes to choices in games I prefer to make decisions based on their pros and cons. Choosing between A or B determining which options, paths, alliances you have open to you. If I need to choose between A or B simply because I don't have enough time to do both, that's just plain uninteresting. The only games where real time passing in the background is interesting are those where there is no main quest, like Pirates! or The Sims 2, where the point is simply to see how much your character can achieve within their lifetime.

When it comes to the passage of time in games I prefer something like Persona 3, where specific time periods, in this case the afternoon and night, are turns, and only one from a variety of activities can be completed in a turn.

 

@ CrashGirl: There are a hell of a lot more things gamers will scream about than just those three. Regenerating health is a pretty common one right now.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

Gamers will scream about a lot of things, not all of them worth screaming about. I still remember a certain uproar with Fallout's time-based main quest. That was a riot; there we were, presented with a gameworld that was anything but static in an important situation. But all people could muster was "Oh no, the game will react if I don't do a damn thing. That's too much pressure, I want to do and see everything! Not fair!". Hey, while we're at it, how about no penalties when standing still in combat? Damn those bugbears, I want to sit on my ass and look at those caves.

 

 

I'm not saying that gamer complaints are justified (or are not justified). I'm not passing judgement.

 

I'm just saying that if you have spent time in the game community, you know that certain design decisons tend to get gamers irritated. Whether it is justified or not, I don't know. It is, however, very predictable.

 

Time limits, forced shutdowns, and respawning enemies are three that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are more. Oh yes, unskippable cutscenes.

 

 

 

 

@ CrashGirl: There are a hell of a lot more things gamers will scream about than just those three. Regenerating health is a pretty common one right now.

 

 

Totally agree. See my repsonse to DR.

Edited December 26, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Tigranes]

Oh yes, unskippable cutscenes.

 

No.1 source of PK'ing in Guild Wars: morons who won't vote to skip the crap cutscenes, and you need 100% vote to skip.

 

Hey, hang on. You can't stereotype me! I'm a human! I have feelings-

[Killian Kalthorne]

I'm a human! I have feelings-

 

Yeah? FEEL THIS! (brings out a baseball bat)

 

*BASH BASH BASH!*

[CoM_Solaufein]

I'll give you something to feel.

 

I've been tinkering around with the GECK to see how easy it is to use and make my own simple mods.

[Enoch]

I've been playing the game for a couple days now (9-ish hours, currently level 4 or 5).

 

So far, I agree that the AI has been disappointing, particularly in the area of threat recognition. When the enemies actually do detect a threat, they do OK. I've had opponents use grenades appropriately (when I was behind cover), flee when a limb gets crippled, and fight in styles appropriate to their weapons (rifle users keep their distance, pistol users usually try to get closer, etc.) But how hard would it be to have enemies actually notice when guns are being fired nearby, or to go investigate when they find a comrade lying on the ground with their head in three pieces?

 

I was creeping through a dungeon (Hamilton's Hideout?) in sneak mode, and saw two raiders in a room ahead of me. I went into VATS to figure out what kind of firepower they're packing-- the sitting one had an assault rifle, and the guy pacing around had a melee weapon of some kind. Then I manually tried to line up a headshot with my hunting rifle on target that presented the greater threat-- the rifle-packing seated fellow. The shot took his head clean off, and I switched to the combat shotgun, in anticipation of the pipe-weilding dude charging. Nope. Not only did he not respond in any realistic manner to the decapitation of his buddy, he actually went and sat down on the very same chair that was still occupied by 90% of the other raider's corpse. It was nice of him to sit so still and let me line up a second decapitation, but a less-"WTF?!"-inducing reaction would have been nicer still.

[Wrath of Dagon]

FO3 going to more countries. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172088 They would allow it in Saudi Arabia? Really?

[CoM_Solaufein]

I agree the AI is very lacking. I've had encounters where I shot one of them and their buddies act like nothing happened. You would think that everyone would go on alert and start looking for you.