Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well first off, realism isn't the end-all be-all in a post apocalytpic rpg. As long as it's explained in a way that at a quick glance you go "yeah, that makes sense", it's fine. For example, yeah Three Dog's setup didn't make much sense. But what if, in New Vegas, it's a radio station set up by some power-player moguls (something equivalent to a New Reno family in fo2), and is supported by sponsored ads? And as for maintaining the machines, come on. This is a game series where you go into abandoned, ruined vaults and find operative computers that will play chess with you.

 

It isn't characteristic for Fallout to only makes sense superficially. Fallout is supposed to make sense within the context of its gameworld, ZAX in the Glow makes sense because he's cutting-edge technology, likely shielded against an EMP blast, with its own personal power source (remember, a T-51b can carry fuel reserves for 100 years) and limited self-repair capability. It made sense when you thought about it.

 

An ad-sponsored radio station in a post-nuclear world is not feasible. There is no point - most people don't have a working radio, since there'd be no point in having one, limiting the listener base severely, and thus the impact an ad might have. Not to mention that the resources required for maintaining a radio station can be put to better use through, say, trade caravans that actually bring people the goods, instead of just telling them "believe us, we have the goods".

 

I think a big difference between any game in the Fallout series and Kotor 2 is that in Fallout your story is more focused on a single character from modest origins going from town to town and eventually affecting the entire region to the point where they are remembered for years to come. I think it's a good thing to see how the general word on the street across the entire region changes as you do things.

 

I'd like to see the radio become a lot more reactive, though. Take stuff like being able to kill the DJs and multiply it into every aspect of their broadcast.

"Well, right now we'd like to play a brief commercial from our sponsors at Fran and Dan 's Trade & Supply, but some maniac killed Fran AND Dan in cold blood so I guess there's not much point. Onto the news! Seems the Hoover Dam's been shut down beyond repair by a myserious assailant. If you're a fan of electricity, you may want to be on the lookout for an african american dame with an ichy trigger finger and a silver tongue. Could this be the same broad that shut down the cannibal operation in Desert Hills?"

 

Instead of the radio, this should be applied to people you meet and their reactions.

 

I'm not completely against the idea of a radio. It'd be feasible in a settlement where someone was able to hook up speakers to a jukebox, patch a microphone into the set and make a makeshift radio station that doubles as a PA system and alarm. To be honest, it'd be great to see settlements have their own radio stations, complimenting the town's atmosphere.

[ The Vault ] [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ]


 


My, that's a whole lot of wikis!


Why, thank you, I love them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea why so many people play FO3 while complaining of it... ;) I wonder if I'm getting jaded but I became really selective in terms of the games.

Not having played something but still passing judgement on it is one of the most retarded and childish things I could do. And I refuse to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not having played something but still passing judgement on it is one of the most retarded and childish things I could do. And I refuse to.

Relax. I passed no judgment. It simply that I feel that gaming may be slowly disappearing from my hobby list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Oner
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0

Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by GreasyDogMeat
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Oner
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...