I can see that.

 

Approaching from a completely rational standpoint, you probably shouldn't compare FO3 to FO1/2, because they were designed by different developers with different capabilities. FO3 was certainly an improvement over Bethesda's last game.

 

Obviously I can understand comparing it to the previous games and obviously the writing, humor, characters don't stand up to that. But we'll also have to consider that these are different times and a different developer. How much more could we have expected from Bethesda?

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by Purkake

Think about some of the scenario's that Fallout 3 sets up:

 

Reilly's Rangers under seige from supermutants while holed up on top of a hotel rooftop

A bunch of young adults thrwon out into the world at Big Town and under seige from slavers and supermutants

Some kid who goes whack and kills his parents then gets picked up by some goth dude whose is starting his own little family for outcasts

 

etc.

 

 

These all have the potential to develop into interesting scenarios where I give a crap about all these people and the world in which they are trying to survive. But they all fail in the end because Bethesda doesn't give a crap enough to develop any of them. Each one is just like a little excercise in mutant killing and then boom! over. I finish each one and am left thinking: what was the point of that?

 

 

If Betheda just spent a little more time trying to engage me, as writing should, all these scarios could pay off as being really interestign and significant.

I just tend to avoid the topic

 

*snicker*

What exactly are you proposing?

I believe that, generally speaking, most people prefer that "the game"/narrator comment on your actions more as a neutral observer than a judge of morality, ethics, or general righteousness. To do otherwise can imply that certain choices are wrong/bad for the game.

I just tend to avoid the topic

 

*snicker*

Looking at the number of FO3-related threads and the ones I have posted in, you'd see that this is mostly true. Sometimes the irrational hate is just too much and I'll jump in. Not that it usually helps any...

I believe that, generally speaking, most people prefer that "the game"/narrator comment on your actions more as a neutral observer than a judge of morality, ethics, or general righteousness. To do otherwise can imply that certain choices are wrong/bad for the game.

 

Sure, I agree...though I guess what I missed was where this came up in discussion.

I can see that.

 

Approaching from a completely rational standpoint, you probably shouldn't compare FO3 to FO1/2, because they were designed by different developers with different capabilities. FO3 was certainly an improvement over Bethesda's last game.

 

Obviously I can understand comparing it to the previous games and obviously the writing, humor, characters don't stand up to that. But we'll also have to consider that these are different times and a different developer. How much more could we have expected from Bethesda?

As slowtrain said, the game has some missed moments of awesome, so it's not like the potential isn't there. Although I believe writing takes more-or-less talent, trying is still important.

BTW my experience with Beth before was 15 minutes laughing as my BFF got his ass handed to him by the naked barbarian in Morrowind (and a buggy thief guild quest), and Oblivion being loved initially and hated afterwards. I never cared about OL, so I didn't look up info, all I knew it wasn't liked, and that doesn't necessarily mean much.

 

 

Sure, I agree...though I guess what I missed was where this came up in discussion.

You were writing that huge post I don't remember so no wonder.

You were writing that huge post I don't remember so no wonder.

 

I WAS PROVING A POINT GODDAMMIT!

 

@to the guy who said that saying Fallout 3 is not a sequel is moronic: reread the post until repeatedly until you get it you get it. I can get a plumbers outfit, and grow a moustache and eat spotted mushrooms but that doesn't make me f-ing Super Mario.

 

To the guy that I'm responding to. Re-read my post until your reading comprehension can grasp what I'm saying.

 

Up until then, I see no point in discussing Fallout 3.

 

Okay, Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

So if you'll ignore the reality strongly enough, it will change?

 

Good luck with that!

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by Purkake

So if you'll ignore the reality strongly enough, it will change?

 

Good luck with that!

 

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by RPGmasterBoo

That wouldn't work even if you WERE Adam Savage.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

Where did I hear that?

A second ago from me.

 

Or maybe from Adam Savage of mythbusters. But that dolt s got nothin on me.

 

That wouldn't work even if you WERE Adam Savage.

 

Unlike him I've still got my hair, thus - I win.

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by RPGmasterBoo

Jamie > Adam

 

I like pickles.

I believe that, generally speaking, most people prefer that "the game"/narrator comment on your actions more as a neutral observer than a judge of morality, ethics, or general righteousness. To do otherwise can imply that certain choices are wrong/bad for the game.

 

 

the narration at the end of F1/2 was great because the narrator explained what happened as a result of your actions, right or wrong, your decisions had an impact on the world, it makes you feel important and vindicated, even if some of the results weren't what you would have wanted. It isn't the game telling you "you are a jerk" its the game telling you "your actions caused the enslavement of an entire community". it's a fact, not a judgment

 

maybe thats what you were saying and im just really slow?

maybe thats what you were saying and im just really slow?

Yes. : P

We could do with a bit less spam or pointless bickerin...

 

And yeah, I'm guilty of that half the time, but as an authority figure, I have to be hypocritical

I think Beth would be well served to drop the pretensions of making a crpg and aim for a more straightforward action exploration game along the lines of Farcry.

 

 

Then the lack of writing skilz wouldn't even matter and they could make a fun though utterly insubstantial game, which seems to be their overall goal.

 

 

edit: That's not an insult. I think Farcry is a pretty fun game.

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by Slowtrain

I think Beth would be well served to drop the pretensions of making a crpg and aim for a more straightforward action exploration game along the lines of Farcry.

 

 

Then the lack of writing skilz wouldn't even matter and they could make a fun though utterly insubstantial game, which seems to be their overall goal.

 

 

edit: That's not an insult. I think Farcry is a pretty fun game.

 

But they aren't very good at FPSes either...

I think Beth would be well served to drop the pretensions of making a crpg and aim for a more straightforward action exploration game along the lines of Farcry.

 

 

Then the lack of writing skilz wouldn't even matter and they could make a fun though utterly insubstantial game, which seems to be their overall goal.

 

 

edit: That's not an insult. I think Farcry is a pretty fun game.

 

But they aren't very good at FPSes either...

They own id software now.

But they aren't very good at FPSes either...

The Terminator: Future Shock

They own id software now.

All id can do are pretty graphics.

 

That's propably what appealed to beth in the first place

Id made Wolfenstein 3d, Doom and Quake which is are still some of the most fun games to play. Just because their later games sucked, doesn't mean that they couldn't make a good one again.