FO: NV

[Oner]

Yeah, you can't win.

 

Either you haven't played it enough to pass judgement, or you played it for a billion hours even though you hate it so much in which case you're a tool. Both are just ways of saying that negative opinions don't count, which is stupid.

Hey, a lot of FO fans say FO 3 is a good game...just not a good FO game. So it's not like objective criticism can't be pulled off.

 

Wombat: Oh I'm relaxed, I'm just exercising my english.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Oner

[TwinkieGorilla]

Hey, a lot of FO fans say FO 3 is a good game...just not a good FO game. So it's not like objective criticism can't be pulled off.

 

z'actly.

 

i feel like it got "fun game!" down pat but i feel like it missed "Fallout" by a thousand light years (is that a lot? i mean for it to be a lot).

[Slowtrain]

Hey, a lot of FO fans say FO 3 is a good game...just not a good FO game. So it's not like objective criticism can't be pulled off.

 

z'actly.

 

i feel like it got "fun game!" down pat but i feel like it missed "Fallout" by a thousand light years (is that a lot? i mean for it to be a lot).

 

 

I would even say that, regardless of i's state as a "Fallout" game, if Bethie had put just some more time into follow through and development of some of the ideas in the game and worked to make the gameworld somewhat more consistent it culd have been a great game.

 

 

But as it stands now, a fun game but ultimately pretty disposable.

[Pop]

Either you haven't played it enough to pass judgement, or you played it for a billion hours even though you hate it so much in which case you're a tool. Both are just ways of saying that negative opinions don't count, which is stupid.

You can only really be a critic if you love something. We all (well, most of us) played through KOTOR2 and thought it was good but possessed of many holes and shortcomings. That's not because we're tools, it's because we gave it our full attention and we noticed things.

[GreasyDogMeat]

The father character, despite the stupid turn midway through the main quest, was one of my favorite characters in the game. Its a shame they had to use the cliche of

killing off the character's family member(s) because the main character HAS to have loss in order to be 'hard' enough to prevail.

.

[Gorgon]

Yeah, it was way too obvious, the ending I dunno, I would have preferred more choices.

[TwinkieGorilla]

You can only really be a critic if you love something.

 

that...just...that's not true. i know what you're getting at but i can guarantee that any music, film, book, etc critic who is panning the heck out of something isn't doing it out of love. and all the points of contention i have with FO3 and Bethesda certainly ain't out of love (unless you mean out of love for the originals, which i don't think is your point and still doesn't make that statement any more true).

 

The father character, despite the stupid turn midway through the main quest, was one of my favorite characters in the game. Its a shame they had to use the cliche of

killing off the character's family member(s) because the main character HAS to have loss in order to be 'hard' enough to prevail.

.

 

right. it's a shame the entire game is built off "cliches" because Bethesda misinterpreted the idea behind the world of Fallout.

 

Yeah, it was way too obvious, the ending I dunno, I would have preferred more choices.

 

i would have preferred more choices which had ANY effect whatsoever on the game throughout the entire game...'cause....uhhhhhhh.....like that's what a good RPG does and that's how the original games were built.

[Pop]

You can only really be a critic if you love something.

 

that...just...that's not true. i know what you're getting at but i can guarantee that any music, film, book, etc critic who is panning the heck out of something isn't doing it out of love. and all the points of contention i have with FO3 and Bethesda certainly ain't out of love (unless you mean out of love for the originals, which i don't think is your point and still doesn't make that statement any more true).

You're right, I worded that incorrectly. What I meant was that if you're criticizing something you've got an idea of what that thing should be, and you wouldn't have such a conception if you weren't enthusiastic about what that thing is in general. I don't listen to much hip-hop so I don't have much business talking about the weaknesses of a Jay-Z album or whatever. But I do play a lot of RPGs (because I love RPGs) so I feel confident looking at an RPG and pointing out where it fails. I could be mouthing off out of spite, but as a general rule I like to think that there has never been a game that could not have been greatly improved in some way.

[TwinkieGorilla]

You're right, I worded that incorrectly. What I meant was that if you're criticizing something you've got an idea of what that thing should be, and you wouldn't have such a conception if you weren't enthusiastic about what that thing is in general. I don't listen to much hip-hop so I don't have much business talking about the weaknesses of a Jay-Z album or whatever. But I do play a lot of RPGs (because I love RPGs) so I feel confident looking at an RPG and pointing out where it fails. I could be mouthing off out of spite, but as a general rule I like to think that there has never been a game that could not have been greatly improved in some way.

 

gotcha. yeah, totally agree. i think that's one thing the people at the Bethesda board really don't understand. that it's not just a bunch of hardcore fans who think it's fun to bash FO3 just out of spite (because it's different than the originals) rather it's a bunch of hardcore fans who are upset that the game changed too many integral bits of what made Fallout great in the first place and created something entirely different (not bad, at least not bad in a generic way, but lackluster in regards to some key elements of good RPG's and the Fallout universe).

[GreasyDogMeat]

Well, the sidequests had numerous options and outcomes for solving them, its just a shame the main quest was so linear. Thats been fairly standard though in previous Fallouts as well.

[Aristes]

I actually liked the father. I didn't even mind the idea that

the father and child would both sacrfice their lives for a greater cause.

What did irritate me, other than the typically shallow way that the game moved the player to the completion of the idea of sacrifice, was specifically the very ending. CRPGs are shallow. Most of the time, that's fine. I'm down with shallow sometimes. After all, it takes time to get into deep ideas and then you're stuck swimming around in them for a while. However, the final bit should have been poignant. It wasn't. Far worse than being trite, it simply didn't make sense in any sort of defensible way. Forcing me to do something at the last minute is okayish, I guess. Forcing me to do something stupid because that's the way the ending needs to be is something different. Yeah, maybe choice in CRPGs is illusory, but the FO3 ending didn't even have the illusion of choice.

 

With all that said, I agree with Oner. I thought the family photo at the end was poignant. I also thought that Liam Neeson did a good job as the father. For all the complaints I've heard in this thread, the father NPC wasn't badly done, even if the writing for the father was fairly lackluster. Certainly not cringeworthy plugging my ears bad writing I've seen in some games, but I wouldn't give it any prizes.

[Starwars]

I think the biggest problem with the father figure is just that it's terribly predictable. It wasn't exactly surprising to see the father figure bite it.

 

Also, most cRPGs have some sort of motivation for the player to accept. But the trouble is that for Fallout 3 forces that kind of personal relationship on you, and tries to play it up dramatically. If you as the player don't accept it then the main plot will make even less sense, because it's still trying to push that emotional button.

It's sort of reminiscant of Bishops betrayal in NWN2. Here's a character that was forced on the player, that at least I would've kicked out as soon as I had gotten the chance, and yet the game doesn't only have him betray me... It also tries to build it up in a dramatical sense when it happens.

 

The main plot is built to much upon that the player will accept the relationship, and even worse, it doesn't present an option to go against it. Sure you can say to Liam "I'm not going with you!", but that just makes the game stop at that point. Everything will wait patiently until you give in and go to Rivet City/The purifier lab and help them out.

 

It's not just that I feel that type of plotline is a bad choice for a Fallout game, it's also that it's very badly executed at any rate.

[Wombat]

Yeah, maybe choice in CRPGs is illusory, but the FO3 ending didn't even have the illusion of choice.

That's not "Fallout" to me. It's the core factor which characterizes it. The word illusion doesn't mean anything since, at the end of the day, any art form including literature can be called illusion, of which, I think, good artists and writers are conscious.

 

I wish CRPGs were deeper and I think some works have potentials. In such works, I find interesting themes and/or thought experiments which can not be/or at least tough to be done in other materials. I don't like them to give up the potentials and consider it to be just "light entertainment." For I think I shouldn't spend my time on something I can regard "disposable."

[bhlaab]

Well, the sidequests had numerous options and outcomes for solving them, its just a shame the main quest was so linear. Thats been fairly standard though in previous Fallouts as well.

 

I disagree entirely. If you look at fallout 1, it barely even has a main quest. Instead it has 3 very open-ended objectives that can be carried out at any time, in no specific order, and with no obligation to play by the rules of the game (such as making specific characters invincible or doors locked until the plot allows them to die/open)

[Tagaziel]

I can't accept how stupid the father character in Fo3 is.

 

I might've been spoiled by KotOR2 and our Mom, err, Kreia.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Well, the sidequests had numerous options and outcomes for solving them, its just a shame the main quest was so linear. Thats been fairly standard though in previous Fallouts as well.

 

I disagree entirely. If you look at fallout 1, it barely even has a main quest. Instead it has 3 very open-ended objectives that can be carried out at any time, in no specific order, and with no obligation to play by the rules of the game (such as making specific characters invincible or doors locked until the plot allows them to die/open)

 

The Overseer sure as heck was invincible (or buffed to such a ridiculous point that even a level 20 character would find it impossible... for all intents and purposes: invincible). My point was that the main quest(s) wasn't very compelling, it was the side quests and towns that was the real meat.

 

Linear wasn't the right word. Even Fallout 3's main quest isn't linear in the sense you can skip large portions of it.

Edited June 21, 2009 by GreasyDogMeat

[Oner]

I will never understand how a main quest can be anything but linear.

[Tagaziel]

Play through Fo1 again.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Play through Fo1 again.

 

srsly. i don't get how people don't see that style of gameplay as completely integral to capturing the spirit of Fallout.

 

 

 

 

anyway, on a different note...i just now realized in complete awe and disgust at myself how i've never once thought (until now) to use the username Kenny Login.

[Aristes]

If I understand Oner right, the main questline is linear, even if it allows you some leeway in how you approach it. What the main quests in FO1 and 2 do better is give the illusion of non-linearity, which FO3 does very well until the choice at the end. Like Wombat says, all fiction is illusion. That doesn't mean it can't be meaningful on a personal level or even convey truths about our existence. Just means that the difference between Zork and Fallout is the how well the design team disguises the fact that we're only allowed to do what they permit us to do in the first place.

 

I'm a huge Zork fan, by the way.

[Oner]

Play through Fo1 again.

Reducing the number of key events to 5-6 instead of 70 and filling the space with sidequests counts as non-linear because...?

Or that you can choose in which order to complete the objectives, or go for the Super Muties from the start?

Or do you mean the ability to ignore it completely?

 

The quests and events themselves won't change, despite what you do (except the thing with the water merchants I guess) in game.

 

Note: I mean these questions seriously, it's 1:35 AM here, and my brain refuses to work overtime.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Oner

[TwinkieGorilla]

If I understand Oner right, the main questline is linear, even if it allows you some leeway in how you approach it. What the main quests in FO1 and 2 do better is give the illusion of non-linearity, which FO3 does very well until the choice at the end. Like Wombat says, all fiction is illusion. That doesn't mean it can't be meaningful on a personal level or even convey truths about our existence. Just means that the difference between Zork and Fallout is the how well the design team disguises the fact that we're only allowed to do what they permit us to do in the first place.

 

I'm a huge Zork fan, by the way.

 

well then this is all just esoteric, abstract, semantic nonsense then, idn't it? none of this changes the fact that regardless of "what" or "how" you call what FO1 & 2 did right in regards to quest structure (amongst so many, many other things) the fact remains that FO3 did not.

 

also,

[GreasyDogMeat]

Play through Fo1 again.

 

I'm currently playing it again, for like, the 30th time since I got it back in 97-98'.

 

The main quest may have followed a linear path, but the many sidequests are the parts that stuck to the nonlinear exploration aspect. A larger more in depth main quest that is linear + a world full of awesome side quests - I like it and Fallout 3 did it right. Now if Obsidian can do the same and deliver a better main story I'm set.

 

Bah... what am I saying... thats a given.

[bhlaab]

The only freedom and nonlinearity in Fallout 3's main quest is "You can either do exactly what we tell you or not do anything at all"

 

It's good that you can skip a huge chunk of it by going straight to

the Tranquility Lane vault

(I'm really surprised they didn't lock the door TBH) but after you reach that point it's a complete roller coaster ride.

Why can't I get into Vault 87 early?

Why can I not avoid being kidnapped by the Enclave?

Why do I have to join the Brotherhood of Steel?

 

Face it, the game is much more concerned about showing off (melo)dramatic moments and action sequences and telling a very specific story that they gave up any pretense of player freedom. They make this game that's suppossed to be about a huge, open world where you can do anything. But as soon as it comes to story, suddenly I'm reading from a script and they get mad if I try to ad lib.

 

Compare this to Fallout 1, where the second you step out of the Vault you can make a straight line for Necropolis and pick up the water chip, no problem. Hell, in the Necropolis you can (emphasis on CAN not WILL) be captured and taken straight to one of the (quote/unquote) "end bosses" of the game!

[Aristes]

Naw, I think FO3 got non-linear right until the end, which was just sucky. I think the worst part of the game was the end, and that ending is what killed the non-linearity for me.

 

The perception is king. That's what non-linearity is, brothers. It's the perception of freedom. If you're going to blow your non-linear wad by presenting a two choice ending, like FO3 did, then at least make the two questions sensible!

 

Hey, I'm a non-abashed fan. I just think the ending sucked. Specifically, I think the two choice ending and the flash forward to the consequences that followed.

 

I liked the fact that the last boss wasn't some mostrously tough ugly. I liked the fact that we managed to complete something. I liked the fact that we could even avoid combat if we had enough speech skill. I just thought that the way Bethesda presented it was lackluster.