Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How did the devs really make Dogmeat cool though? Wasn't he just a dog that you could get with some food or by wearing a leather jacket? I don't remember him doing anything "cool." Unless the "haha dogmeat is running up to the supermutant and he just got gibbed by a rocket" is cool or something?

1) He was a murderously effective melee combatant.

2) People like dogs.

3) He was sufficiently vague that people were able to mentally ascribe to him characteristics of actual dogs they knew and loved.

Don't forget the self-imposed challenge of keeping him alive.

 

 

Fallout 2 DID have morale checks. Drugged skinheads would usually start flailing adn running after a shot or two. Now that was "fun", mainly because they still had to take their turns and then they'd usually run out of the camera range and you couldn't target them or quit battle.
There was a reason I put enemy movement speed on max. :thumbsup:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which still isn't enough. I generally really like the combat of the older Fallouts, but the bigger fights (of which there are many, especially in F2s random encounters) can just suck sometimes. And yeah, people running away outside the grid could be enormously annoying at times.

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, they really need an option to 'skip' enemy turns that don't affect you directly, like some later turn-based combat games. Not sure what they were thinking with the grid, but one look at how it all works in the editor shows you that the game engine was pretty much rubbish (maybe not at the time?). "Exit zones", walls that are laid down iindividually, a script system from hell, ridiculous inventory...

 

Of course, now we are all over that, VATS is probably the only really problematic thing in FO3 engine, if that game had problems it wasn't the engine IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How did the devs really make Dogmeat cool though? Wasn't he just a dog that you could get with some food or by wearing a leather jacket? I don't remember him doing anything "cool." Unless the "haha dogmeat is running up to the supermutant and he just got gibbed by a rocket" is cool or something?

1) He was a murderously effective melee combatant.

2) People like dogs.

3) He was sufficiently vague that people were able to mentally ascribe to him characteristics of actual dogs they knew and loved.

 

 

witty dialogue and character growth not makes your list?

 

dogmeat were comparable to hk-47... the original kotor incarnation. neither character existed beyond the surface level attributes, and both were disproportionately popular. hk-47 were, in point o' fact, a one-trick-pony. Gaider admitted that he got tired o' writing hk-47... added that assassin-bot encounter on korriban as kinda a personal penance. the psychotic robot had his "meat-bag" shtick. dogmeat had... his doginess? flat and static characters can be fun, but is hard to claim that they is well-developed, and if flat and static is describing your Best character, then something is serious wrong.

 

So I suppose you would also agree that Bethesda's decision to develop the "explosions" aspect of FO3 fully and develop the "reactivity to player choice" element lightly is just a choice, not a weakness in the game?

 

am suspecting that for folks like slowtrain and twink, the genuine difference 'tween the poorly developed jnpcs of fo1 and the limited reactivity to player choice in fo3 were that the posters in this thread liked fo1 and didn't like fo3 as much. there is an understandable tendency to dismiss the shortcomings or mistakes of those works a person enjoyed. just as folks defend tolkien's prose style if they were fans o' lotr, the defenders o' fo1 have a difficult time finding fault with cain's game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean, apart from all the faults found just above your post? :ermm:

 

On characters, though, yeah - Dogmeat didn't become a cult hit because of any good design or writing, there was none. Designers spent 10 minutes putting him in. Being fond of dogmeat is, pretty much, having fond memories of the frustrating and horrible pathfinding / joinable NPC AI issues. I just find it funny how we're seeing dogs in every bloody RPG now.

 

Otherwise, I mean, compare First Citizen in Vault City or NCR President in FO2 with any FO3 character, or even the FO2 president with the FO3 machine, and it's not really a question of red-tinted glasses, is it? It's a question of obvious difference in quality. Just like how FO1/2 had an obviously crap interface in so many ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might remember wrong, but i've read somewhere that initially it wasn't intended for fallout 1 to include the option for followers. Some dev hacked it in the engine in the last minute.

 

Fallout 2's followers were awesome, i often played with CH10 so i could recruit as many as possible. Most of then had unique character, given by their backstories and their in game behavior. And the fact that fallout 2 had implemented a system to control companions a decade before fallout 3, which didn't, is yet another laugh in the whole story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Otherwise, I mean, compare First Citizen in Vault City or NCR President in FO2 with any FO3 character, or even the FO2 president with the FO3 machine, and it's not really a question of red-tinted glasses, is it? It's a question of obvious difference in quality. Just like how FO1/2 had an obviously crap interface in so many ways.

Sorry bro, but Bittercup > all. :p

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fallout 2's followers were awesome, i often played with CH10 so i could recruit as many as possible. Most of then had unique character, given by their backstories and their in game behavior. And the fact that fallout 2 had implemented a system to control companions a decade before fallout 3, which didn't, is yet another laugh in the whole story.

 

That's something I liked as well. They felt unique and had their backstories, but they never turned into the classic "talk your ears off" party companion. I also liked that some were simply not good fighters and of very limited use in combat

 

The characters in Fallout 1 feel a bit more understated in general, not including the Master (who I love) and Gizmo (who I find annoying). Even a character like Harold is pretty toned down and more serious (though still funny) than in the other games.

 

Like I said before, I think it's a good idea to bring more characterization to the followers, but for the love of god, please don't turn them into the standard RPG companions where you have to play the psychologist all the time.

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

That's a good point, the followers weren't 'balanced' so everyone pulls their weight, Myron is an annoying bastard to keep alive like he's meant to be.

 

I think not having talky-talky companions should remain the case in all Fallouts. Considering the kind of world Fallout is, it's really fitting that nobody's going to talk to you all night about their psychological problems, they're going to just keep chugging along... until they snap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good point, the followers weren't 'balanced' so everyone pulls their weight, Myron is an annoying bastard to keep alive like he's meant to be.

 

I think not having talky-talky companions should remain the case in all Fallouts. Considering the kind of world Fallout is, it's really fitting that nobody's going to talk to you all night about their psychological problems, they're going to just keep chugging along... until they snap.

 

 

I think dogmeat should be the one who finally snaps and starts going on and on about existential doubt.

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good point, the followers weren't 'balanced' so everyone pulls their weight, Myron is an annoying bastard to keep alive like he's meant to be.

 

I think not having talky-talky companions should remain the case in all Fallouts. Considering the kind of world Fallout is, it's really fitting that nobody's going to talk to you all night about their psychological problems, they're going to just keep chugging along... until they snap.

 

 

I think dogmeat should be the one who finally snaps and starts going on and on about existential doubt.

 

Or he could snap and begin to talk like Gromnir : IMAGINE THE TWIST!

Link to post
Share on other sites
the defenders o' fo1 have a difficult time finding fault with cain's game.

 

not really, no. but in hoping the next game is improved, you usually discuss the issues you have with the previous games, correct? so i talk about the things which Fallout 1 or 2 did to make me fans of the series, and what Fallout 3 did to make me not a fan of Bethesda's direction. not too hard to understand, even though devils advocates or Bethesda apologists like playing this card. it simply isn't true. the issues i tend to have with Fallout 1 or 2 get brought up, but just not as often as there not only weren't as many...but certainly not as game-breaking for me.

Edited by TwinkieGorilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
the defenders o' fo1 have a difficult time finding fault with cain's game.

 

not really, no. but in hoping the next game is improved, you usually discuss the issues you have with the previous games, correct? so i talk about the things which Fallout 1 or 2 did to make me fans of the series, and what Fallout 3 did to make me not a fan of Bethesda's direction. not too hard to understand, even though devils advocates or Bethesda apologists like playing this card. it simply isn't true. the issues i tend to have with Fallout 1 or 2 get brought up, but just not as often as there not only weren't as many...but certainly not as game-breaking for me.

 

 

It's pointless tring to explain it. Once you've been branded a "FO Defender" or a "Bethesda Basher" people stop reading what you're saying and simply attach whatever meanings they want to your post.

 

I still make my posts re: Fallout 1/2/3 and Bethesda but I don't bother going back and forth with people about them. Absolutely an exercise in futility.

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

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
the defenders o' fo1 have a difficult time finding fault with cain's game.

 

not really, no. but in hoping the next game is improved, you usually discuss the issues you have with the previous games, correct? so i talk about the things which Fallout 1 or 2 did to make me fans of the series, and what Fallout 3 did to make me not a fan of Bethesda's direction. not too hard to understand, even though devils advocates or Bethesda apologists like playing this card. it simply isn't true. the issues i tend to have with Fallout 1 or 2 get brought up, but just not as often as there not only weren't as many...but certainly not as game-breaking for me.

 

 

It's pointless tring to explain it. Once you've been branded a "FO Defender" or a "Bethesda Basher" people stop reading what you're saying and simply attach whatever meanings they want to your post.

 

I still make my posts re: Fallout 1/2/3 and Bethesda but I don't bother going back and forth with people about them. Absolutely an exercise in futility.

 

woe is you. to be labeled as a fo apologist (different than defender) you gotta show an obtuseness and a resistance reason similar to vol's comments concerning nwn or dragon age... or boo speaking of bg2. of course the fo apologist is not a absolute label but a helpful guide; aids in explaining bizarre inconsistencies and sudden reversals. very helpful.

 

nevertheless, just as we does not dismiss every vol comment, we does not instantly ignore the response o' the average fo apologist... 'cause much as it is true that being paranoid don't mean "they" ain't out to get you, a slavish devotion to cain or the imagined fo ideal does not preclude the possibility that the fo apologist might be correct.

 

HA! Good Fun!

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

"Im indifferent to almost any murder as long as it doesn't affect me or mine."--Gfted1 (September 30, 2019)

Link to post
Share on other sites
the possibility that the fo apologist might be correct.

 

how is there a "correct" here? there was something about the original games which gave me this "devotion" and reeled me in. those things, for the most part, are absent from Bethesda's version. those things (some more tangible and easily defined/explained than others) are things i want to return. that's as complex as the issue gets. it's not about right/wrong objectively speaking. 'least not from my perspective.

Edited by TwinkieGorilla
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get all this hoopla any more. A game is either fun to play or not fun to play. If you find a game not fun to play then find a game that is fun to play.

 

Why get all worked up about it?

"Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't get all this hoopla any more. A game is either fun to play or not fun to play. If you find a game not fun to play then find a game that is fun to play.

 

Why get all worked up about it?

 

i hate having to constantly explain this to you:

 

1) i'm not really a gamer, but a Fallout obsessive.

 

2) i want another GOOD Fallout game.

 

3) the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't get all this hoopla any more. A game is either fun to play or not fun to play. If you find a game not fun to play then find a game that is fun to play.

 

Why get all worked up about it?

 

This forum would be pretty boring then.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's pointless tring to explain it. Once you've been branded a "FO Defender" or a "Bethesda Basher" people stop reading what you're saying and simply attach whatever meanings they want to your post.

 

I still make my posts re: Fallout 1/2/3 and Bethesda but I don't bother going back and forth with people about them. Absolutely an exercise in futility.

Oh please, if anyone on this forum has been a 'victim' in the Fallout 'vs' discussions it has been people who enjoy Fallout 3. You get called a retard here if you like Fallout 3.

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