Fallout

[Aram]

[Slowtrain]

No, just read news articles on the release day messes. And the patches'.

I happen to be one of those poor misguided fools who bought the dlc for pc, all of it except mothership zeta.

I know, I failed my willpower roll and suffered a critical failure. I know this because in the little text box in the lower left part of the screen it said:

 

Critical failure, player has purchased Operation Anchorage. DLC will need to be separated from games for windows live and manually installed like a mod in order to play. This will not be fixed by a patch. Furthermore, the required patch increases CTD's, Borks VATS, and makes grenades/rockets untargetable.

 

Critical failure, player has purchased The Pitt. Dlc works reasonably well, but introduces animation bugs through the silly circular saw thingy. This will not be fixed by a patch.

 

Critical failure, player has purchased Point Lookout. Dlc must be installed in a manner similar to Anchorage in order to run. Surprisely, it's not bad. The brain in a jar guy is both hilarious and well voiced. Just as you are begginning to enjoy yourself you are critically shot in the face by an extremely over powered double barrel shotgun weilding extra from Deliverance.

 

Critical failure, player has purchased Broken Steel. Game introduces an awesome weapon called the Heavy Incenerator that produces reliable CTD's whenever used. Bethesda were unable to bipass their own source code, so the new ending is clumsily tacked on. Many new missions don't work. Giant mobile fortress is spiffy, but difficult to reconsile with logic. Save games become rapidly corrupted, massive collection of mods become unplayable. Broken Steel, has broken Fallout. Player takes critical irony damage for 39.99 US, from patch 1.5

Wallow in shame, nub.

 

 

I have all the DLC except for the alien one as well, and I don't think any of it is the same quality as the base game. Much of it just feels like throwaway bonus content that they tossed together to make a few bucks. The high number of bugs and broken animations and whatnot in the DLC just shows to me that not much effort was really put into it but whatever was neccessary to get it to more or less run.

 

However, I don't think that impacts negatively on the reasonable quality of the base game.

[Slowtrain]

Do you think that game writing has improved (or not) over the last 20 years?

Since 1989? Yes, but the bar wasn't very high.

 

 

lol. Sad but true.

[Mikhailian]

I have all the DLC except for the alien one as well, and I don't think any of it is the same quality as the base game. Much of it just feels like throwaway bonus content that they tossed together to make a few bucks. The high number of bugs and broken animations and whatnot in the DLC just shows to me that not much effort was really put into it but whatever was neccessary to get it to more or less run.

 

However, I don't think that impacts negatively on the reasonable quality of the base game.

Well for me it was kinda mixed. On the one hand, it's not like it made the core game's dialogue any worse. On the other hand, a big selling point of the core game was the GECK and customization. Essentially the community born potential. Patch 1.5 effectively killed the most ambitious projects that were in development, and I tend to think that was a shrewd business move rather than a simple and easily remedied mistake that was overlooked before and after patch release. It's alright though, I can still play with the classic adv. power armour mod, and the classic plasma/laser weapon mods, and the 14mm pistol mod, and the classic fallout radiostation mod, and the global transportation system mod, and the raider companion mod, etc, etc. It just crashes every hour, on the hour.

 

The sad thing is, I don't think I could enjoy the game without lots of mods. Every time I try to actually play the core game, I can't get past the plot, the poor dialogue, and the equally bad voiceovers. It'd be awesome if the next installment had more than 10 voice actors, and they had a little more flavor, and/or personality to their voices.

[Sannom]

Having low level 2D graphics doesn't make a game more likely to have good writing.

 

 

Perhaps not directly but maybe it forces developers to work harder on other aspects of the game if they can't rely on flashy graphics to carry the day? Given that every game has a limited amount of resources available to it during development, if a lot of those respources are spent making great graphics then it follows that other aspects of the game are probably going to have to get limited attention.

 

But I'll certainly agree that there is no direct and automatic correlation between low-res 2d graphics and good writing.

 

Well, look at Planescape : Torment : considered to have one of the best writing in the industry, yet also the only Infinity Engine game who favored aesthetics over gameplay. The game is gorgeous compared to Baldur's Gate 2, but it comes at a price : JRPG-styled spells which block the action, nearly no ranged weapon because of a close-to-the-ground camera, same for Area of Effect spells, etc. And let's not mention the poor choice of class : only two classes of interest, and one of them is so overpowered and adapted to the game in every way that it makes the other one useless.

[jero cvmi]

Do you think that game writing has improved (or not) over the last 20 years?

Since 1989? Yes, but the bar wasn't very high.

 

Some Infocom games had great writing.

Then some Lucas Arts games had also pretty good writing.

 

Also, Wasteland.

 

The majority of games in the 80s the writing was about ninjas and evil professors, or there was no writing at all since they were mostly arcade games. You can't really define an average for writing in computer games. So how do you define who sets the bar?

 

If the bar is defined by what's memorable, then i'd vote for Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy. Pass that.

 

The fundamentals of graphic art and writing haven't changed much with the advent of computer gaming, but the ability of artists to actually display their work as intended in a computer gaming medium has improved drastically. That is, technology has limited the ability to display graphic art much more than it has limited the ability to display writing.

 

true that, but i think it's creativity that matters most. A genious artists' work will be impressive no matter what means are available.

I found Fellini's and Godard's early color movies far more visually attractive than today's most top notch CGI films.

 

I guess it's just easier to rely on technology instead of human creativity to create, on time and in budget, something that's just barely good enough for mass production.

[J.E. Sawyer]

true that, but i think it's creativity that matters most.

Do you think that artists and writers today for no explicable reason had all creativity drained out of them compared to the geniuses of the mid-80s?

[Guest Slinky]

I use to get hung up on writing and a lot of the bullcrap way back when but you know, I just don't care any more. Only thing I care about is if the game is fun or not and Fallout 3 was a fun. The only thing that matters to me now is if the game is fun to play. Everything else is irrelevant.

I can understand that. I hope you can understand, that some people, like me, can't shake off the feeling that F3 is meant for people who drool and wear a propeller hat. Just because of the dialog/characters and overall writing. It kinda kills the funfactor of the game if it makes you feel like you should get an lobotomy to enjoy the game

 

Disclaimer: I do not really think that only stupid people like F3, I just wrote what I personally felt about the game. I know many people like the game, and that all good and fine.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Tell me Deathdealer, what game do you consider made for smart people (I'm assuming you place yourself in that category)?

 

I'm assuming you're the kind of guy who considers George R.R. Martin to be the pinnacle of western literature.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Hell Kitty]

A genious artists' work will be impressive no matter what means are available.

 

No. While an artist will strive to do their best within the limits they've been given, there is only so much you can do with 320x200 CGA, and it's most certainly not impressive. The limits placed on an artists have no effect on the quality of other aspects of a game.

 

i think it's creativity that matters most.

 

It doesn't matter how creative one is if they don't have the skill to do anything with that creativity.

[jero cvmi]

true that, but i think it's creativity that matters most.

Do you think that artists and writers today for no explicable reason had all creativity drained out of them compared to the geniuses of the mid-80s?

No. And there are no less geniuses in the populace now than in the 80s.

 

I'm just not so sure if this creativity is more encouraged (and invested on) today.

 

What company would work with a guy like Douglas Adams to do the writing for a videogame? In the 80s the gaming industry was small and breakthrough business, and things like that would happen. Now it's a larger mass culture industry, with standard success remedies, why risk being creative.

 

And at the same time, it's not as large as the Film or Music industry, where breakthrough artists might find some funding in the waterfalls of money that's invested. Maybe one day, Videogames will flourish like Film and Music.

Edited December 5, 2009 by jero cvmi

[Guest Slinky]

Tell me Deathdealer, what game do you consider made for smart people (I'm assuming you place yourself in that category)?

I don't consider any game to be made for smart or less smart people. I think games are combination of what the devs want to make and what their targeted audience might want to see in that game. Bad dialog is just something that just jumps out and hits me with a shovel the second I see it.

 

I'm assuming you're the kind of guy who considers George R.R. Martin to be the pinnacle of western literature.

Haha, no. I did read the first book and few pages of the second before I stopped. Otherwise ok, but there was too many main characters. The books jumped from place to place as a result. And most of them were kids, which is a bad thing in my opinion.

[Guard Dog]

Funny thing, if we had never played games like Torment of FO2 we would not even realize the shortcomings of FO3. I guess ignorance is bliss after all.

 

@Killlian, I agree I had fun playing FO3, and of course I'll keep buying the titles, but there were times it was a little hard to swallow. Bad writing/dialoge does not kill a game. A bad plot will. And for all of FO3s flaws it's main plot wasn't terrible. It just wasn't great.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I don't recall FO1 having stellar writing either.

 

it was witty, original and much more than functional. it reacted to SPECIAL in a meaningful way and gave an experience in RPGS heretofore unseen. the proof of this is pretty solid. Fallout has become a major cult icon of gaming. Fallout 3 will go down in history as a half-respected sequel at best and a godawful joke at worst.

 

is, sandbox games, almost by definition, isn't going to have good writing. Frankly, I'd rather have had FO3 not have any main quest at all. When I want storytelling, I'll go play something from Bioware.

 

bioware eh? i think i see where we differ.

 

I finished Fallout a couple months ago for the second time and I wasn't knocked over by the writing.

 

see my above mini-paragraph.

 

Do you think that artists and writers today for no explicable reason had all creativity drained out of them compared to the geniuses of the mid-80s?

 

it depends on what company and which individuals you're speaking of. does the team or guy responsible for:

 

[intelligence] So you fight the good fight, etc

 

look ridiculous in comparison to Chris Avellone? uh, c'mon. is it their fault? who knows. maybe they didn't have much creativity to begin with. maybe their parents touched them in bad ways. who knows. who cares. all i want is another Fallout game which doesn't force me to turn it off because it's so goddamn embarrassing.

[Kelverin]

Fallout 3 will go down in history as a half-respected sequel at best and a godawful joke at worst.

First off I agree with you about the (lack of) quality regarding FO3. But there are literally millions who think the game is the greatest game ever made and if Obsidian is smart they would not rock the boat and make a similar sequel, that is if the wanted to make $$$$$.

[Slowtrain]

Fallout 3 will go down in history as a half-respected sequel at best and a godawful joke at worst.

First off I agree with you about the (lack of) quality regarding FO3. But there are literally millions who think the game is the greatest game ever made and if Obsidian is smart they would not rock the boat and make a similar sequel, that is if the wanted to make $$$$$.

 

 

They could probably make more though if they ramped up the writing a bit. Even on the Beth boards dissatisfaction with the writing in FO3 is pretty common.

 

 

Even those who aren't all that thrilled (or are nervous) about Obs developing NV are at least happy that the writing will probably improve.

[Kelverin]

Fallout 3 will go down in history as a half-respected sequel at best and a godawful joke at worst.

First off I agree with you about the (lack of) quality regarding FO3. But there are literally millions who think the game is the greatest game ever made and if Obsidian is smart they would not rock the boat and make a similar sequel, that is if the wanted to make $$$$$.

 

 

They could probably make more though if they ramped up the writing a bit. Even on the Beth boards dissatisfaction with the writing in FO3 is pretty common.

 

 

Even those who aren't all that thrilled (or are nervous) about Obs developing NV are at least happy that the writing will probably improve.

Take care of the bugs and make sure the ending(s) are compete, then worry about the writing. Most of the people who have anything to say about the writing mentioned above, purchased the game (mission accomplished) no matter the nature of the ****tacular writing, I know there are those that stole it as well and bitched too, but they are irrelevant.

 

I finished Fallout a couple months ago for the second time and I wasn't knocked over by the writing. It was functional most of the time and creative on occasion. I'd say it was better than Fallout 3, but there were a few bothersome issues, like a lack of change in NPC reactions when I just did something big. The problem here is this is extremely subjective. For every person that yells "Fallout 3 has the worst writing evar!" you can probably find another who says it is good.

 

All I'm saying is it was functional. It got the job done. It explained the story. Frankly thats all it needed to do for me, because I was really playing to enjoy the sandbox elements, explore the wasteland, and find neat trinkets.

It goes beyond the writing in both FO the quests were so involved and well written it not funny, have your typical FO3 fan try to get skynet in FO2 and watch their head explode.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Kelverin

[Tigranes]

I haven't read the thread carefully, so hang me up and throw tomatoes if I'm being clueless, but as far as quality of writing goes, I don't see how anybody can't recognise how superior FO1/2 writing is over FO3. You can debate about change of perspective, game mechanics, quest design and whatnot, sure - but just look at the writing. I don't think FO1/2 writing was amazing, but it managed to consistently hit the right note and give the right feel for most of the games. You can't find many instances where you think to yourself 'oh that's contrived', 'they're overdoing the swearing' or 'this doesn't seem Fallout-y' (yes, it's possible for FO1 to set the terms on what Fallout-y is and at the same time fail to meet those standards in different parts). And sometimes you have some downright hilarious or memorable, quotable lines.

 

I do think FO2 and FO3 are similar in one way, that they both 'break out' of the universe too often, which is why some people don't much like FO2 either. I think for me the difference was in FO2, most of the time, it was funny; in FO3, dialogue is never funny except by mistake.

[Oner]

Take care of the bugs and make sure the ending(s) are compete, then worry about the writing..

I'll just add that the crap ending was the fault, or rather the consequence of the bad writing.

 

 

I saw several people on the Beth boards stating FO 3's writing was a step up from what they experienced before. Which I kinda doubt, especially when someone said Bioware games had worse writing, but whatever. Every joke's new for a newborn.

[zerexaki]

How could you not laugh at:

 

[Slowtrain]

Even most of the people who love Beth's sandbox games rarely defend the writing.

 

Either they don't care one way or the other or they agree its not so great but they just love the sandbox, exploration gaming style, so the writing doesn't matter.

[Tigranes]

I saw several people on the Beth boards stating FO 3's writing was a step up from what they experienced before. Which I kinda doubt, especially when someone said Bioware games had worse writing, but whatever. Every joke's new for a newborn.

 

Actually, FO3 did feature better writing than Oblivion for the most part. It's still not very good, but I liked how they clearly paid more attention to story and writing this time round, and hope they'll continue that in TES5. But really, yeah, story and writing is not the point of playing any Bethesda game, it's the exploration and such.

[Oner]

How could you not laugh at:

 

Yes, those were really good.

 

Actually, FO3 did feature better writing than Oblivion for the most part.

Ah yes, some of them did say that.

[Kelverin]

Take care of the bugs and make sure the ending(s) are compete, then worry about the writing..

I'll just add that the crap ending was the fault, or rather the consequence of the bad writing.

That was a shot at Obsidian and their previous effort(s)

[Oner]

That was a shot at Obsidian and their previous effort(s)

Oh.