Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Neonivek, that was uncalled for. You don't just laugh at someone's face like that. I just said my honest opinion, and everyone's entitled to have one, no?

Ohh I wasn't laughing at your opinion. I was laughing at the way you phrased it because it actually formulates a good joke.

Specifically

as opposed to actually spending their budget on better places?

Yeah I sure wish they would spend their budget on better places.

I just thought the humor was more self-evident. I was hesitant because I was worried that pointing attention to a joke you made unintentionally, would be unappreciated given it goes against the spirit of what you wrote.

I must tell you that you are a rude shit.

It is one of those things that when I try to think about why "I" do it. I realize that it is because everyone else does it to me. Meaning it is a natural thing to do.

[scriver]

Which is very strange of you given that F3 was just F2's plot regurgitated into a more nonsensical form.

Yeah but at least Fallout 3 was nice enough not to throw it in your face. It didn't have the big bad going "Neener neener neener" at you.

Or rather... Fallout 2's plot was more in your face bad then Fallout 3s and was much worse paced. While Fallout 3 is just a nonsense excuse plot that tries to copy Fallout 2 but never realized that what people liked about Fallout 2 was how it let you play the game the way you wanted to, without being beholden to the pacing of the first game.

I don't see how F3's plot was any less in your face than any of the other games, and definitely not worse than F2's.

[GiglameshDespair]

Which is very strange of you given that F3 was just F2's plot regurgitated into a more nonsensical form.

Yeah but at least Fallout 3 was nice enough not to throw it in your face. It didn't have the big bad going "Neener neener neener" at you.

Or rather... Fallout 2's plot was more in your face bad then Fallout 3s and was much worse paced. While Fallout 3 is just a nonsense excuse plot that tries to copy Fallout 2 but never realized that what people liked about Fallout 2 was how it let you play the game the way you wanted to, without being beholden to the pacing of the first game.

I don't see how F3's plot was any less in your face than any of the other games, and definitely not worse than F3's.

F3's plot isn't worse than F3's?

[Virtz]

I still don't see how that's different from games these days. You could still do all of that in modern fallout games, hell, only the main quest crucial characters are essential. You kill someone, and you fail a ton of quests. I honestly feel like you are speaking from nostalgia.

They'll give anyone an essential tag, tho. Worse in TES than the new Fallouts, but still not great. Part of a guild you can join? Essential. Some random bumpkin it turns out you have to speak to in a guild or main quest? Essential. Child? Essential. Guy that exists only to say something during a cutscene? Essential. And so on.

In Fallout 1 and 2, the only people "essential" were the people of the settlement you were trying to save, and even then you could still kill them (you did get a game over once you were done since you had just destroyed your character's reason for doing anything, tho). Nobody in Necropolis was essential because you'd be speaking to them about taking their waterchip. Nobody among the super mutants was essential because talking to them would help explain things. The Master wasn't essential before you spoke to him or even knew what's going on. Nobody in the BoS was essential because you'd be asking them for help with the super mutants. Nobody in the Enclave was essential till they explained their big evil plan.

They hired people like Tony Jay, Richard Dean Anderson, and Michael Dorn for voice talent in those games, and you could still kill their characters before they uttered a word, or never even end up meeting them. Nothing was forced on you.

In the first two Fallouts, you could make a beeline for the main story end points and finish the game in under 20 minutes if you knew how to circumvent not being leveled. Didn't have to talk to anyone, just run in and murder before questions could be asked. Something like that was also in Morrowind as well, but no longer in Oblivion, Skyrim, nor the newer Fallouts.

There's less freedom in the newer Bethesda games than there was in the old Fallouts. And this ain't nostalgia.

[scriver]

Which is very strange of you given that F3 was just F2's plot regurgitated into a more nonsensical form.

Yeah but at least Fallout 3 was nice enough not to throw it in your face. It didn't have the big bad going "Neener neener neener" at you.

Or rather... Fallout 2's plot was more in your face bad then Fallout 3s and was much worse paced. While Fallout 3 is just a nonsense excuse plot that tries to copy Fallout 2 but never realized that what people liked about Fallout 2 was how it let you play the game the way you wanted to, without being beholden to the pacing of the first game.

I don't see how F3's plot was any less in your face than any of the other games, and definitely not worse than F3's.

F3's plot isn't worse than F3's?

Do you disagree with that statement?

Technical correctness aside, I meant F2 in the second one. Thamks for noticing.

[GiglameshDespair]

Which is very strange of you given that F3 was just F2's plot regurgitated into a more nonsensical form.

Yeah but at least Fallout 3 was nice enough not to throw it in your face. It didn't have the big bad going "Neener neener neener" at you.

Or rather... Fallout 2's plot was more in your face bad then Fallout 3s and was much worse paced. While Fallout 3 is just a nonsense excuse plot that tries to copy Fallout 2 but never realized that what people liked about Fallout 2 was how it let you play the game the way you wanted to, without being beholden to the pacing of the first game.

I don't see how F3's plot was any less in your face than any of the other games, and definitely not worse than F3's.

F3's plot isn't worse than F3's?

Do you disagree with that statement?

Technical correctness aside, I meant F2 in the second one. Thamks for noticing.

Technically speaking, I really suppose I can't disagree with that, no.

[XhAPPYSLApX]

I personally love almost all of Bethesda's games, played them since I was about 8. Love the sense of freedom more than anything really. Bad writing didn't even break the immersion for me.

I love the original Fallouts for the dialogue.
And I love the modern ones for their gameplay and mechanics. (When they don't bug out )

Love all of the Elder Scrolls besides Arena, which is a terrible game in my opinion.

I personally don't get all the hate towards Bethesda, they make games this big and awesome with only a little over 100 people, whereas EA games have around 600-700 working on a game, and it still churns out big steaming piles of shit.

[Rolan7]

I still don't see how that's different from games these days. You could still do all of that in modern fallout games, hell, only the main quest crucial characters are essential. You kill someone, and you fail a ton of quests. I honestly feel like you are speaking from nostalgia.

They'll give anyone an essential tag, tho. Worse in TES than the new Fallouts, but still not great. Part of a guild you can join? Essential. Some random bumpkin it turns out you have to speak to in a guild or main quest? Essential. Child? Essential. Guy that exists only to say something during a cutscene? Essential. And so on.

In Fallout 1 and 2, the only people "essential" were the people of the settlement you were trying to save, and even then you could still kill them (you did get a game over once you were done since you had just destroyed your character's reason for doing anything, tho). Nobody in Necropolis was essential because you'd be speaking to them about taking their waterchip. Nobody among the super mutants was essential because talking to them would help explain things. The Master wasn't essential before you spoke to him or even knew what's going on. Nobody in the BoS was essential because you'd be asking them for help with the super mutants. Nobody in the Enclave was essential till they explained their big evil plan.

They hired people like Tony Jay, Richard Dean Anderson, and Michael Dorn for voice talent in those games, and you could still kill their characters before they uttered a word, or never even end up meeting them. Nothing was forced on you.

In the first two Fallouts, you could make a beeline for the main story end points and finish the game in under 20 minutes if you knew how to circumvent not being leveled. Didn't have to talk to anyone, just run in and murder before questions could be asked. Something like that was also in Morrowind as well, but no longer in Oblivion, Skyrim, nor the newer Fallouts.

There's less freedom in the newer Bethesda games than there was in the old Fallouts. And this ain't nostalgia.

This is all very true, and I do wish the newer games could be speed-run...  Also that fast travel (not fast-travel) was possible in Oblivion and Skyrim like it is in Morrowind.
In Morrowind though, you get a notification whenever the main quest is rendered unwinnable by an NPCs death.  The implication is that the player would then reload (but it's great that you don't have to, if you don't care about the quest).  Essential NPCs are pretty much an evolution of that concept. 

I would want to reload any time Martin died (on my first playthrough, anyway).  And just imagine trying to escort that bookworm through Tamriel if he wasn't invincible.  Could be fun for some, but sounds frustrating to me...  Partially because the wilderness is much more dangerous than it has any right to be, to provide the player with challenge.  Lore-wise Martin ought to be able to make the trips fine, lots of people do.  In the game he'll be waylaid by multiple groups of bandits, maybe some vampires, and Akatosh help him if he strays off the road and into the Bear Forests.  (Also the bandits might be in daedric armor)

Oops, rambling.  In short, I don't want quests to fail because NPCs get themselves killed.  I usually don't want them to fail even because I accidentally killed someone important.  If I do want a playthrough like that, I'm sure there are mods to remove the Essential flags appropriately.

[Virtz]

I'd prefer if nobody was essential and irreplacable to the story. If they aren't the end-goal, then there should be ways around their death or a different ending if they were somehow important. Even if the different ending is a short road to failure (although the NPC better be Martin-level important for that to be a thing).

Making NPCs essential is a deevolution to the Daggerfall/Arena days when all NPCs that mattered in any way were animated GIFs you couldn't even attack.

[MorleyDev]

Making NPCs essential is a deevolution to the Daggerfall/Arena days when all NPCs that mattered in any way were animated GIFs you couldn't even attack.

"With this character's death, the thread of prophecy is severed. Restore a saved game to restore the weave of fate, or persist in the doomed world you have created."?

[Shadowlord]

And yet Obsidian was able to make it possible to kill pretty much anyone in Fallout: New Vegas without breaking the plot. Even better, if you kill important people, like Caesar, the game adjusts the plot to account for their absence.

(Whereas in Skyrim assassinating Ulfric is right out)

[Graknorke]

(Whereas in Skyrim assassinating Ulfric is right out)

I played NV before Skyrim and this really disappointed me. Ulfric was such a massive tosser to your face, but you can't do anything easy and gratifying about it.

[Cheedows]

But killing Caesar was the biggest disappointment I had in NV (I loved it regardless though) since basically no one gives a rat's ass that you actually killed him. But I guess it goes along the line of no one caring that you're the Dragonborn in Skyrim.

[SealyStar]

But killing Caesar was the biggest disappointment I had in NV (I loved it regardless though) since basically no one gives a rat's ass that you actually killed him. But I guess it goes along the line of no one caring that you're the Dragonborn in Skyrim.

Heh, same. I did like some of the NPC throwaway lines about Caesar's death but it bothered me that it didn't affect anything.

Actually killing him, though, was probably the toughest puzzle that NV through at me, with the number of overpowered goons crammed into such a small space. I also went for the challenge of killing him with a knife, so I had to gun down all the goons first to do it safely. Then I posed his body in his throne again and apparently no one ever went back into the tent to clear it out.

[Gabeux]

(Whereas in Skyrim assassinating Ulfric is right out)

I played NV before Skyrim and this really disappointed me. Ulfric was such a massive tosser to your face, but you can't do anything easy and gratifying about it.

All I wanted in Skyrim was to subdue the Empire using the Stormcloaks, and then murder the bitchy Ulfric.
I'm not knowledgeable about TES lore, but didn't the empire have two or more dragonborn emperors? Why shouldn't the Dovahnkin be free to become emperor instead?

I mean, with that ultra-forged ultra-enchanted daedric set, dual-wielding ultra-forged ultra-enchanted swords that can leech life, it's not like someone can do anything about it.

..but hey, I liked Skyrim (except the final boss was terrible. Such a buildup, such a setting, such a stupid boss).
It's just that, much like in NV, I wouldn't mind killing all the stupid people. Not my fault both sides sound stupid and self-righteous as hell - and both are willing to commit atrocious crimes.
In that scenario, much like in NV, I'd rather take it all for myself and name the remaining players.

But we can't have a single dude taking over the world, can we? It's not like he could shout dragons down from the sky, or take a bullet to the head and wake up with a simple hangover.

I'm typing too much, maybe I should go to sleep.