Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 53

Author Topic: Fallout 3: Stupidity Discussion  (Read 63813 times)

JustOnePixel

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #105 on: September 02, 2008, 11:53:34 pm »

And here I was thinking that the resumption of high school would cut down on forum crap.
Logged
Tessie! 'nuf said' McGreevy shouted,
we're not here to mess around!
Boston, you know we love you madly,
hear the crowd roar to your sound!
Don't blame us if we ever doubt ya, you know we couldn't live without ya!
RED SOX!  You are the only, only, only!

Torak

  • Bay Watcher
  • God of Gods of Blood.
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #106 on: September 03, 2008, 12:13:41 am »

And here I was thinking that the resumption of high school would cut down on forum crap.


Should you not be off studying then?
Logged
As you journey to the center of the world, feel free to read the death announcements of those dwarves that suffer your neglect.

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the cosmos. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips, I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my veins. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk and free throw.

Hyndis

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #107 on: September 03, 2008, 01:23:11 am »

Fallout 3 IS A GAME.

Stop getting your panties in a wad about a game. Games don't have to be ultra deep, profound things that can entertain you for all eternity.

I just expected a reasonable amount of entertainment for my money, and as compared with, say, the price of a movie ticket for 2 hours of entertainment, games compare extremely well.

I also enjoyed Morrowind and Oblivion, and spent more time than I'd like to admit playing them. The mod tools also added massively to the replay value.

Fallout 3 is, yes, based on the Oblivion engine. Yes, Its Oblivion with guns. But why is this a bad thing? Oblivion got excellent reviews, and really the only bad thing about Oblivion was the leveling system. However, this was easily fixed with mods in Oblivion, and in Fallout 3 they've also fixed it so while enemies will get tougher as the game progresses, bandits won't be spawning with power armor and gatling laser guns.

And just looking at the teaser videos, there's at least 3 full play-throughs in the game. You can be the good guy, the bad guy, or neutral, each with their own storylines that actually make a difference, such as blowing up a town.

Its just a game. All it has to do is be amusing enough that its a good entertainment value.
Logged

IndonesiaWarMinister

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #108 on: September 03, 2008, 08:26:23 am »

You have no idea who're you fighting against, eh?
These guys are in love, yes, in love with the fallout 1.
They think long-termly, and unfortunately, with Bethesda have Fallout rights right now, If the fallout 3 is bad then maybe the will not be Fallout 4/5 (or Bethesda opened the source, and rights. Which is maybe just imagination.)

IWM
Logged

Ioric Kittencuddler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Multiclass Bard/Kitten trainer
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #109 on: September 03, 2008, 07:58:48 pm »

Fallout 3 IS A GAME.

Stop getting your panties in a wad about a game. Games don't have to be ultra deep, profound things that can entertain you for all eternity.

I just expected a reasonable amount of entertainment for my money, and as compared with, say, the price of a movie ticket for 2 hours of entertainment, games compare extremely well.

I also enjoyed Morrowind and Oblivion, and spent more time than I'd like to admit playing them. The mod tools also added massively to the replay value.

Fallout 3 is, yes, based on the Oblivion engine. Yes, Its Oblivion with guns. But why is this a bad thing? Oblivion got excellent reviews, and really the only bad thing about Oblivion was the leveling system. However, this was easily fixed with mods in Oblivion, and in Fallout 3 they've also fixed it so while enemies will get tougher as the game progresses, bandits won't be spawning with power armor and gatling laser guns.

And just looking at the teaser videos, there's at least 3 full play-throughs in the game. You can be the good guy, the bad guy, or neutral, each with their own storylines that actually make a difference, such as blowing up a town.

Its just a game. All it has to do is be amusing enough that its a good entertainment value.

Well that's all well and good if you only like simplistic games, but some people actually like depth and complexity... like Dwarf Fortress players for instance.  So it's pretty upsetting when one of the few remaining icons of deep, complex games gets dumbed down for mainstream appeal.

And still, no one has even touched on my question of why the hell they'd buy the Fallout rights in the first place when they were planning to make a game like this.  They spent allot of money on a license that most of their target audience wouldn't even recognize.

Quote
And seriously, if FO2's stats screen is too hard for you to understand, how did you ever manage to play Dwarf Fortress?

Because fallout 2 was a differently paced game than fallout 3. Just as with Dwarf Fortress you have time and room for error and trial and experiment until you get the game. Whereas in Fallout 3, it looks like it's shaping up to be that if you use the menu in combat it has to be fast, streamlined and efficient.

Don't get me wrong - this is all my first impression and I certainly could be wrong.

As for the covert action effect, I mentioned that as a related effect. The entire game is focused around highly, highly, highly segmented game modes. You can spend five minutes in combat and then end up driving and just think "Wait, WTF, who am I supposed to be chasing again?" In a think-fast game - which FO3 seems to me to be shaping up to be - you can't have irrelevant information to the task at hand displayed all at once with the relevant data. That just ends up in confusion. To avoid that sort of effect happening, you have to have a streamlined, integrated display that you can bring up and instantly get a single topic of information up in front of you - and only that topic.

Again, do not get me wrong. Do not misunderstand. I understood Fallout 2's interface fine. Fallout 2's interface was fine - for Fallout 2. This is Fallout 3. Again, different game. Different pacing. Different methods. If you try to use the same methods on a different game, they aren't going to work.

Is Fallout 3 going in the right direction for the series? I'm honestly not sure anymore. It's no longer the point I'm trying to make. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't dismiss the interface just yet.

All I know right now is that I plan to save any further opinion on whether it is a worthy sequel until I play the game.

By the way, if you want to see what I'm talking about, go download DosBox, and then download Sid Meier's Covert Action from Home of the Underdogs. (Google 'em.) It's a fun game, but the interface is sorely lacking simply because you can't focus on the information you need for the current task in the middle of said task. Or outside a mode at all, really - all you can get is a bunch of data every time, leaving you with a few minutes to scratch your head and seperate the pertinent data from the irrelevant. You can't call up said information in the middle of a task. You can only call it up when you're in the overview, meaning playing with a piece of paper and a pencil or a good memory is essential to remembering what you're doing once you're finally into that computer system and trying to figure out what you were supposed to search for.

I really don't understand your argument.  You're saying that it's more convenient to have to switch between multiple pages to get to all the relevant information rather than having it all on one, and that it takes more time to see all the information on one page than it does to shift through multiple pages?  The game pauses whenever you go to the menu.  It's not like the one page scrambles the locations of the information every time you open it.  It's always in the same place, you just look there.  With the multi page approach you actually have to think more because you have to remember which button to press to get to the one bit of information you want, and then if you want to do anything more complex than see one bit of information you have to switch back and forth.  How is this in any way more convenient?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 08:11:10 pm by Ioric Kittencuddler »
Logged
Come see the MOST interesting Twitter account on the internet!  Mine!

Don't worry!  Be happy!  It's the law!

McDoomhammer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Uses: Ore of irony
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #110 on: September 03, 2008, 08:09:34 pm »

Egad, you're right.  Why would the people who play Bethesda's RPGs want to buy a sequel to a classic series of RPGs?  It makes no sense.
Logged
"KILL, KILL, KILL! NOTHING SHALL STAND BETWEEN US AND THE CEREAL BAR!"
-The Violent Council of Breakfast

Ioric Kittencuddler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Multiclass Bard/Kitten trainer
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #111 on: September 03, 2008, 08:16:22 pm »

Egad, you're right.  Why would the people who play Bethesda's RPGs want to buy a sequel to a classic series of RPGs?  It makes no sense.

Bethesda paid over 5 million dollars for the license.  Now... you're telling me that the possibility that some people who have have never played Fallout 1 or 2 would recognize the name and become interested in the game when they wouldn't already have been just because it was being made by the makers of Oblivion was worth over 5 million dollars?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 08:17:53 pm by Ioric Kittencuddler »
Logged
Come see the MOST interesting Twitter account on the internet!  Mine!

Don't worry!  Be happy!  It's the law!

McDoomhammer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Uses: Ore of irony
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #112 on: September 03, 2008, 08:31:50 pm »

I find that hard to respond to, because it's a convoluted mess of a sentence.  Suffice to say no, that's not what I was trying to say.   Frankly I'm mystified by your assertion that Bethesda's target audience would not be familiar with Fallout.  It's not that obscure.  Ask for good PC RPGs and you'll probably hear Morrowind, Torment, Baldur's Gate, Fallout.  In fact it happened here.
Logged
"KILL, KILL, KILL! NOTHING SHALL STAND BETWEEN US AND THE CEREAL BAR!"
-The Violent Council of Breakfast

Ioric Kittencuddler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Multiclass Bard/Kitten trainer
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #113 on: September 03, 2008, 08:43:42 pm »

Their target audience is console gamers.  It was for Oblivion as well.  The only reason it's even on PC is because the Xbox 360 is basically a dumbed down PC.  It's really easy to port 360 games to PC so there's no real effort involved if all you're doing is a straight port and aren't even trying to make it work well, like Oblivion.
Logged
Come see the MOST interesting Twitter account on the internet!  Mine!

Don't worry!  Be happy!  It's the law!

Torak

  • Bay Watcher
  • God of Gods of Blood.
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #114 on: September 03, 2008, 09:07:29 pm »

I find that hard to respond to, because it's a convoluted mess of a sentence.  Suffice to say no, that's not what I was trying to say.   Frankly I'm mystified by your assertion that Bethesda's target audience would not be familiar with Fallout.  It's not that obscure.  Ask for good PC RPGs and you'll probably hear Morrowind, Torment, Baldur's Gate, Fallout.  In fact it happened here.


It's not obscure, but it's not mainstream like most everything Bethesda craps out into the market. The people Bethesda aim for in their games are either A.) Too Young to even care about fallout 1/2 or B.) Graphics whores who thought the game sucked because it was made when it was.
Logged
As you journey to the center of the world, feel free to read the death announcements of those dwarves that suffer your neglect.

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the cosmos. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips, I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my veins. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk and free throw.

McDoomhammer

  • Bay Watcher
  • Uses: Ore of irony
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #115 on: September 03, 2008, 09:14:22 pm »

You know, you're kind of like the guy in a restaurant who finds a hair in their salad or gets the waitress who's doing her best but having trouble because it's her first day, and then demands to see the manager and complains at the top of their voice at how awful it is and how dare they be treated this way.  You know the one.  He (or she) probably has a valid point in there somewhere and if he weren't being so aggressive about it everyone else would agree, but his blustering, and overwhelming sense of entitlement, and assumption that everyone else must share his righteous indignation all just mean that even those who agree with him in principle don't care because the guy is spoiling their night too over salad dressing.

In short... It's a game.  One that isn't out yet.  Chill.  But if it really makes you feel better... You win.  You're right, we're wrong, Bethesda suck and your impeccable logic has proven that the game will be awful.  Any of us who choose to play it anyway are indeed very silly people.  And if, in spite of it being imperfect and not a proper sequel, we actually enjoy it, we apologise in advance.  Sorry for ruining your memories of Fallout 1-2.

Is that what you wanted to hear?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 09:26:43 pm by McDoomhammer »
Logged
"KILL, KILL, KILL! NOTHING SHALL STAND BETWEEN US AND THE CEREAL BAR!"
-The Violent Council of Breakfast

Ioric Kittencuddler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Multiclass Bard/Kitten trainer
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #116 on: September 03, 2008, 09:41:21 pm »

No, what I want to hear is a valid counter to anything I've said, because you obviously don't agree.  Instead I just get a bunch of fan boy bullshit while at the same time you pretend not to care.  If you didn't care, you wouldn't be defending the game.

I don't understand your metaphor.  If I'm the obnoxious customer then who's the waitress?  Bethesda?  It isn't Bethesda's first day, and they're not the waitress, they're the cook, and their last soup was full of hair, and all the samples of their new soup have had hair in them, and all the previewers have said that it has hair in it but is still somehow true to the non-hairy soup made oh so long ago by another company that this soup is named after and is supposedly based on, except they are saying that the hair is not actually hair, even though they've described it exactly like hair.  And now, I'm anticipating that this new soup will be more like the company's previous soup, and not like the soup it's supposedly based on, and as such will be full of hair.

Oh yeah, and while the people who reviewed the company's previous soup at the time, and stated that it was without any hair at all, they are now suddenly saying that the previous one had hair in it but those particular hairs will not be in the next game and acting like they knew those hairs were there all along.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 09:44:56 pm by Ioric Kittencuddler »
Logged
Come see the MOST interesting Twitter account on the internet!  Mine!

Don't worry!  Be happy!  It's the law!

GregHayes

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.opengameforge.org
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #117 on: September 03, 2008, 11:42:31 pm »

As hesitant as I am to wade into the quagmire of a Fallout 3 thread, the calls of justice and potential reasonable debate draw me forward.

No, what I want to hear is a valid counter to anything I've said, because you obviously don't agree.

Alright. I have gone through your posts in this thread, and attempted to locate your main arguments against the game. I have distilled them down to bullet points, and posed my counterpoints.

- Called shots have been simplified - How, exactly? VATS looks like a fairly functional "called shot" system to me. Apparently some body parts may or may not have removed, I'm getting conflicting information on this. Either way, you can shoot people in various body parts to various effects.

- Fallout 3 will not have choices with consequences: Assuming the videos we saw at the start are representative of the game, this is obviously not true. Therefore, I can only assume that you think Bethesda is lying, which will be addressed in "Bethesda is evil" below.

- No multiple solutions to quests, including non-violent options: We have confirmation that someone has completed the game without killing anything but a radscorpion they happened to pass by at one point. Again, I can only assume you think Bethesda is lying. See "Bethesda is evil," below.

- Bad AI: Radiant AI is actually fairly good, it just suffers from Hype Backlash and being in the uncanny valley. Presumably, it has also been improved since Oblivion, though I will concede this point if you can provide a countering source. Either way, RAI is fun to have in open-world games.

- Atmosphere has been canned: Has it? I mean, really? They seem to be going for it to me. In any case, atmosphere is inherently subjective, and I'm not going to get into an argument with you on something neither of us can really define (Yes, I know you think you can define it. You are wrong.)

- "They've completely disregarded the gameworld to an extent equaling or even exceeding the massacre they did on Oblivion": I conceed this point. Bethesda has disregarded the lore of Fallout slightly more than the lore of Elder Scrolls in creating the humanist branch of the Brotherhood of Steel. One deviation from the lore where Oblivion contained none. (Do not try me on this. I have heard them all before, and it's obvious you've never played more than the first five minutes of Oblivion)

- Bad Animation: I will conceed this point. However, see "Console gamers are stupid graphics whores" below.

- Ability to rip the armor off any character and wear it yourself, even though you can now totally dismember characters: You do realize that this is a good thing, right? And yeah, it's a little unrealistic to be able to take the clothing from somebody who's been totally dismembered, but it's hardly enough to make the game a disaster.

- "Voice actors are still the same terrible crap from Oblivion": The problem with voice actors in Oblivion isn't that they were bad. By video game standards, they were actually quite good. It's just that there were so few of them. And yes, having few voice actors is a flaw. It is not a crippling flaw.

- Bethesda's writers misunderstand the subject matter, and, as an example, are not taking nukes seriously: Since neither of us can genuinely know what writers are thinking, I can only debate the example, not the point. I've yet to see any "jokes" about nuclear explosions. The only thing that comes close is the Fatman, which is clearly a satirical jibe at '50's jingoism and obsessions with having the most and biggest nukes. This sort of thing is Fallout. This sort of thing is, in fact, the basis on which the universe is built.

- Choices that aren't just black and white: I'll grant you that, so far, Bethesda does seem to be leaning towards a more black and white view of the future. This is a shame, but it's not pissing on the soul of the franchise, and you should be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Yes, Oblivion had nothing but black and white decisions. Oblivion was also an epic fantasy game, where those choices are thematically appropriate.

- Different art style: Now you're just seeing things. The art style doesn't look significantly different to me.

- The SPECIAL system has been altered and stripped down: The SPECIAL system was also imbalanced as fuck and could use some revision. It is not the pinnacle of roleplaying systems. Variety is nice, but sometimes conciseness is, too.

- Oblivion had the same dialogue style as Fallout 3 does: This isn't actually a point being made against Fallout 3, really, but it's significant in that it shows you never played Oblivion for more than five minutes.

- If Bethesda had more subtle nuances of choice, they would have shown them instead of Megaton: Megaton was early, dramatic, and an effective way to show the scope of the changes you could make. There is also innumerable potential for double-dealing and backstabbing in there on the part of the player, which has been fulfilled, if player reports from PAX are to be believed. Subtle choices do not make good previews.

- The interface is all eye candy and blank space and terrible and bad: Some of us like having our interface organized into tabs, and appreciate the added immersion factor of building it into the Pip-Boy. Some of us, apparently, are too lazy to select tabs and want it all on one screen.

- People who thought Fallout was perfect back in the 90s, think it suffers from the graphics and interface now: Yes. The games are good. They have not aged spectacularly well. Standards have risen, and Fallout's graphics and interface no longer meet them.

- Console gamers are stupid graphics whores: Right. Just like all PC gamers are casual gamers who never play anything but Solitaire. This is a baseless, incredibly offensive belief that for some mindboggling reason has gained credence among PC gamers - okay, the reason's not that mindboggling. It's because it makes you feel smart. You can always say to yourself, "At least I'm better than those stupid console gamers." It's fanboyism of the worst calibur, and you are going to have to abandon this belief if you want anything resembling a reasonable debate, or it will color your arguments. The fact is, nobody really cares that much about graphics.

- Bethesda is evil: In the end, your argument ultimately boils down to this: You believe, for some genuinely mindboggling reason, that Bestheda has nothing better to do with its five million dollars than a buy a cult PC gaming liscence that nobody really cares about anymore, produce a triple-A title for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3 for ridiculous amounts of money, and deliberately take out all the things that made it "Fallout," solely for the purpose of displeasing its fanbase. Alternatively, you may be suggesting that Bethesda has spent five million dollars on a gaming RPG license that nobody cares about so that they can develop a "Joe Gamer"-friendly, watered down fascimile thereof, rather than spending that time, money, and manpower on making a game in one of the far, far bigger RPG IPs they already own. You are, essentially, stating that Bethesda hates not only Fallout and its fanbase, but also money. Occam's Razor supports the fact that they did for it exactly the reason they said they did - they're fans of the game and want to make more.

There's one other factor I haven't mentioned at work here - the Fallout fanbase represents a particularly ugly manifestation of the Gamer Entitlement Complex. They think that they are owed another "true" Fallout game. But the simple fact is that they aren't. They aren't entitled to a new, "true" Fallout game. They aren't even entitled to Fallout 3. A while ago, you send that the fanbase has supported the series through a mediocre game and a terrible one. But that's not true. Fallout: Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel both sold terribly. How have you supported the series? By buying the first two games ten years ago and then talking about them on the internet? Yeah, I'll bet that went a long way toward saving Interplay from bankruptcy. Your support of the series ended with whatever Fallout game you bought last. Stop pretending you're a victim.
Logged

Torak

  • Bay Watcher
  • God of Gods of Blood.
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #118 on: September 03, 2008, 11:52:39 pm »

I'm not going to section of your post because I honestly don't give enough of a damn to argue, but I never said all Console gamers are graphics whore, just that Bethesda has been focusing on them, the Mountain dew fueled generation which if it sees anything below the current threshold of graphics and flashy explosion filled gameplay completely ignores it and calls it crap.


Also, I have played Oblivion, I still have it on my computer. It's a bad game. I'm not writing an essay because it's unnecessary and not relevant to this debate.
Logged
As you journey to the center of the world, feel free to read the death announcements of those dwarves that suffer your neglect.

One billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the cosmos. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips, I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my veins. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk and free throw.

GregHayes

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.opengameforge.org
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #119 on: September 04, 2008, 12:08:38 am »

I'm not going to section of your post because I honestly don't give enough of a damn to argue, but I never said all Console gamers are graphics whore, just that Bethesda has been focusing on them, the Mountain dew fueled generation which if it sees anything below the current threshold of graphics and flashy explosion filled gameplay completely ignores it and calls it crap.

I'm not really sure if you ever said that or not. I am fairly certain that Ioric Kittencuddler did.

Quote
Also, I have played Oblivion, I still have it on my computer. It's a bad game. I'm not writing an essay because it's unnecessary and not relevant to this debate.

Again, never said you didn't. My post was addressed specifically to Ioric Kittencuddler. He's the guy I quoted at the top of the post, he's the "you" in all the points. Earlier in the thread, he made a comment about Oblivion's dialogue system that clearly demonstrated he'd never played the game for more than the first five minutes. As for why it's relevant? People are citing Oblivion (or, more generically, "Bethesda's track record", by which they mean Oblivion) as evidence for why they cannot be trusted with Fallout. You guys brought Oblivion into this, not us.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 53