vault_overseer Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I think PL was the best DLC by far, although I'm more interested in background for sandbox play then most anything else, so your mileage may vary. That's the only one I haven't played yet. So far, Pitt is my favorite.
Kjarista Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I think PL was the best DLC by far, although I'm more interested in background for sandbox play then most anything else, so your mileage may vary. That's the only one I haven't played yet. So far, Pitt is my favorite. Pitt gave me a "This is so cool" moment when I climbed up the tower and looked across the city ruins. Was one of the more visually impressive sights in a game I've seen for quite some time.
vault_overseer Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I think PL was the best DLC by far, although I'm more interested in background for sandbox play then most anything else, so your mileage may vary. That's the only one I haven't played yet. So far, Pitt is my favorite. Pitt gave me a "This is so cool" moment when I climbed up the tower and looked across the city ruins. Was one of the more visually impressive sights in a game I've seen for quite some time. Pitt overall felt very fallouty.
WDeranged Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I enjoyed The Pitt, the moral dilemma is quite well done, if only it was as big as Point Lookout
Slowtrain Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 My biggest problem with the Pitt was that there was so little to it. What was there was good enough, but too much of the gameplay content was dependent on hunting down the ingots. If you just get the required ten, the whole dlc is over pretty fast. Overall, I felt that the bulk of the DLC was too shooter-based, but maybe that's a limitation of the dlc format. 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.
CoM_Solaufein Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I wish the Pitt had more to it. Exploring a few places of such a large city was pointless. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is StrengthBaldur's Gate moddingTeamBGBaldur's Gate modder/community leaderBaldur's Gate - Enhanced Edition beta testerBaldur's Gate 2 - Enhanced Edition beta tester Icewind Dale - Enhanced Edition beta tester
Walsingham Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I'm playing it now for about the fourth time, and I am LOVING it. I don't know if I've changed or whether it's because I'm using VATS less, but it completely rules. I'm even finding new places I never realised were there, and in honour of FO NV going to Obs I'm going to buy all the DLC if I can hit my targets on work this week. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
entrerix Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 using vats less greatly improved my experience with the game. makes it more immersive. and since we cant have an rpg, we might as well have an immersive shooter. Killing is kind of like playin' a basketball game. I am there. and the other player is there. and it's just the two of us. and I put the other player's body in my van. and I am the winner. - Nice Pete.
Slowtrain Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 While I certainly agree that using VATS less (or not at all preferably) greatly improves the FO3 experience, it's still not a very good shooter. 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.
HoonDing Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 The terrible AI & wonky animations ruin the shooter aspects completely... if one has played STALKER it feels even worse. But then, combat has always sucked in Bethesda's RPGs. Only in their actiion games like Redguard it was very fun. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
alanschu Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Haha, Stalker seems to have its share of terrible AI and wonky animations too
Slowtrain Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Haha, Stalker seems to have its share of terrible AI and wonky animations too Interesting I would have said the animations in STALKER are quite good and while the shooter AI as usual is never "good" it's certainly better than FO3. ALso the weapon dynamics and combat dynamics are far better. If FO3 was as good a shooter as STALKER: SOC, it would have been a fabulous game. 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.
alanschu Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 I'm still early in the game but charging that camp at the beginning was cool but nothing particularly special haha. I did love it when a boar somehow ended up inside of a fence at the main camp and kept making a noise that sounded a lot like gunfire as the collision detection caused it to twitch.
entrerix Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) i had some problems with the stalker AI. i took out TWO entire military bases by waiting around a corner inside a building in each of them... (reminded me of the original fallouts metal gear solid 1 had better AI, and that game is 10 years old and on the playstation 1. fallout 3 AI was lousy too. but at least they'd flush with grenades sometimes. Edited October 9, 2009 by entrerix Killing is kind of like playin' a basketball game. I am there. and the other player is there. and it's just the two of us. and I put the other player's body in my van. and I am the winner. - Nice Pete.
HoonDing Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) With a simple edit of Fallout3.ini you can make everyone killable, as it is supposed to be. Only drawback of that is that their bodies always stay 'intact'. Edited October 9, 2009 by virumor The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Slowtrain Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 i had some problems with the stalker AI. i took out TWO entire military bases by waiting around a corner inside a building in each of them... (reminded me of the original fallouts metal gear solid 1 had better AI, and that game is 10 years old and on the playstation 1. fallout 3 AI was lousy too. but at least they'd flush with grenades sometimes. Stalker:SOC didn't have NPC greneade throwing becasue there wasn't time to implement it properly. CLear Sky had npc grenade throwing. It was the subject of a good deal of whining by gamers because they said it made the game too hard. Which it didn't. 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.
Purkake Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) It's common knowledge that grenades suck, in any game, starting with Terror From the Deep. Edited October 9, 2009 by Purkake
Slowtrain Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 It's common knowledge that grenades suck, in any game, starting with Terror From the Deep. Grenades were awesome in TftD. For the frist part of the game they were really the only useful weapon. Out of a 12 man team, 6 would be dedicated grenadiers. They would run around with a live grenade in each hand and a bunch more in their packs and belts. Needless to say their life expectancy was short and they were kept well away from each other and the main team. 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.
Purkake Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 I mean they sucked when the enemies used them. I would have said UFO Defense, otherwise.
213374U Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Stalker:SOC didn't have NPC greneade throwing becasue there wasn't time to implement it properly. CLear Sky had npc grenade throwing. It was the subject of a good deal of whining by gamers because they said it made the game too hard. Which it didn't. Oblivion Lost re-enabled grenade throwing for enemies, presumably using the original mechanics which the devs chose not to use in the game. Every lousy bandit had an uncanny ability to hit you in the head with grenades, regardless of distance and field of view. That, coupled with the fact that grenades made no sound when landing among the abundant foliage and their lethality made the game quite difficult. They didn't really fix this for CS, they simply added a HUD warning that a grenade was flying towards you, and a rather mild sound for grenades hitting the ground. STALKER/CS is not a very good example of balanced (read: fun) grenade implementation. I remember reading one of the previews where the devs were repeatedly owned by bandits essentially spamming grenades everytime the player went behind cover. They reduced the frequency and STILL it was pretty ridiculous. You were actually safer in the open exposed to direct fire than behind cover... Edited October 10, 2009 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Slowtrain Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 I dunno. I thought the grenade tossing in CLear Sky was awesome. They were fairly easy to avoid as long as you were saying attention and didnt try to dig yourself in somewhere. 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.
HoonDing Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Back to Fallout 3 - nuka grenades are hilariously awesome. Bethesda really went overboard with the custom-made weapons. Even the simple dart gun can turn a super mutant behemoth encounter into a trivial matter. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
jero cvmi Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 Back to Fallout 3 - nuka grenades are hilariously awesome. Bethesda really went overboard with the custom-made weapons. Even the simple dart gun can turn a super mutant behemoth encounter into a trivial matter. dart gun and nuka grenades aside, the rest of the custom weapons didn't make much sense. I mean, if you have to have a flaming sword, a plasma torch a la kotor 2 would be far more believable than a blade with flamethrower fuel, no? i'd prefer to be able to build simple, more sane stuff like slingshots, tomahawks, molotov coctails, zip guns etc. along with the possibility to modify your arms like adding scopes and sawing barrels, stuff like that would make far more sense IMO.
HoonDing Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 The Gamebryo engine is... horrible? I've reinstalled FO3 for some reason and reloaded an old save, and now I've run into the notorious frame skipping problem that renders the game unplayable (and gives one a headache after 10 minutes of play)... I don't remember having this before. New engine, Bethesda, please. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Kjarista Posted October 11, 2009 Posted October 11, 2009 The Gamebryo engine is... horrible? I've reinstalled FO3 for some reason and reloaded an old save, and now I've run into the notorious frame skipping problem that renders the game unplayable (and gives one a headache after 10 minutes of play)... I don't remember having this before. New engine, Bethesda, please. Every graphics problem I've had with FO3 were the result of extra codecs on my system. With everything but MS codecs disabled, the game runs fine. It is annoying to have to do that though. Folks are wondering if Beth will now use the engine ID is using for their new game.
Recommended Posts