Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 53

Author Topic: Fallout 3: Stupidity Discussion  (Read 63948 times)

S_Verner

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #450 on: December 16, 2008, 10:36:16 pm »

Raping of the plot: BlizzaVivendiVision has done much worse to their own series.

It's not even the Toddler's series, he stole that one too.

Last I heard, VivendiVision got the case over the rights to disappear.
Logged
Quote
Combat has been...  improved.

Quote
Oh God No!

Quote
Oh God YES

Agdune

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #451 on: December 17, 2008, 06:09:20 am »

Quote
Oh, and raiders. I'm wondering who all these raiders raid. I end up accidentally  uncovering a raider base in FO3 every day. There are like 10 raiders to 1 civilian.

That's been a long running problem with both TES and FO3. Must just be Bethseda's style or something. It's long been a mystery to me how towns/forts of populations of under 20 manage to hold out against the billions upon billions of bandits and monsters that roam the untamed wilds/wastes.

I mean, Canterbury commons for example. 2 guards keep the "town" (about 5 people not including themselves) secure against the horrors of the waste. Let's not even mention how the hell Arefu's meant to cope. At least Big Town has an excuse... Also think about Oblivion which suffered the same problem, every 13 steps you'd walk into a cave that contained at least a dozen bandits or goblins or skeletons. Great for smashy-smashy gameplay, but how the hell do the inhabitants of all these tiny hamlets and lone shacks manage to protect themselves from 10^42 bloodthirsty uzi-wielding litchking mutant centaurs? They can't even handle me knocking them them around a little when they're trying to stop me stealing their property =\

Actually, the bigger mystery is how does scavenging manage to support so many bandits? I'm yet to see a single attempt at a farm in this game, so everyone must just be living off iguana sticks and Nuka-cola... you can't tell me there's that much food buried in the rubble to have supported everyone this long.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 06:17:33 am by Agdune »
Logged
I'm Mr. Cellophane

Aqizzar

  • Bay Watcher
  • There is no 'U'.
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #452 on: December 17, 2008, 06:53:43 am »

Just got the game, and that is by far the biggest logical stumbling block.  It's a problem pretty much any RPG has that tries to show a detailed world, i.e. individual people and towns you can completely walk around in, and Bethesda has never had a good solution.  If the raiders and predators (there's no prey anywhere except a couple Brahmin) were scaled to the size of towns, there'd be no excitement.  If towns were scaled to the number of threats, they'd be too big to walk around in and destroy your computer.  The original Fallout's towns were pretty similar, in that there were way too many people in them for the amount of stuff and houses.

Oh by the way, I was one of the "at least wait til it comes out to start judging it" people, and now that I've played it, you know what?  I'm having fun.  I haven't learned the game-behind-the-game yet, so I'm still futzing around in wonderment.  It reminds me of playing Morrowind for the first time.
Logged
And here is where my beef pops up like a looming awkward boner.
Please amplify your relaxed states.
Quote from: PTTG??
The ancients built these quote pyramids to forever store vast quantities of rage.

Granite26

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #453 on: December 17, 2008, 11:11:27 am »

I've always kind of assumed that for every named NPC, there's 3-4 unnamed and usually unseen characters.  Take TwoPenny (or whatever) Towers.  You got the ground floor and the top, but from the outside there's a dozen stories or so.

The crew of an aircraft carrier is around 3200 and has way more hallways than they show.

All that said, I agree about the farming, especially given the locust way you end up playing the game.

Puck

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #454 on: December 17, 2008, 11:38:27 am »

Yeah, every friggin nuka cola bottle that ain't empty makes me wonder how people possibly could have missed that...

The nuka cola factory isnt working anymore, now, is it?

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #455 on: December 17, 2008, 12:27:16 pm »

so you guys are saying you would rather have a limited amount of bandits and raiders?
Logged

Virtz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #456 on: December 17, 2008, 01:22:44 pm »

so you guys are saying you would rather have a limited amount of bandits and raiders?
How about a lower encounter frequency and settlements the size of towns (they're not even the size of a decent village, for Christ's sake)?
Logged

Agdune

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #457 on: December 17, 2008, 03:39:42 pm »

I'm not saying that at all, I'm loving the game.

It's just something that keeps popping up in the back of my mind that I can't see a real solution that will allow me to keep blasting things happily and/or maintain decent framerates. Can you imagine if the CPU death that would occur if Rivet City had half the number of people you'd expect from anywhere that has the word "city" in its name? Not to mention, devs can't flesh out everything during their cycles, any time spent making towns more logically sized would have come out of something else =\
Logged
I'm Mr. Cellophane

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #458 on: December 17, 2008, 04:54:36 pm »

if you want more people to talk to, get ready for the same voice actors....oblivion couldnt hire 100's of voice actors for all their guys but they had a large city...if you want something like that in fallout get ready for consequences
Logged

Virtz

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #459 on: December 17, 2008, 06:09:21 pm »

It's just something that keeps popping up in the back of my mind that I can't see a real solution that will allow me to keep blasting things happily and/or maintain decent framerates. Can you imagine if the CPU death that would occur if Rivet City had half the number of people you'd expect from anywhere that has the word "city" in its name? Not to mention, devs can't flesh out everything during their cycles, any time spent making towns more logically sized would have come out of something else =\
Can you imagine if they used an engine that doesn't suck? The requirements are nearly Crysis level and yet the game doesn't look anywhere near as good, nor does it simulate as much physics. I'd much rather have it look like San Andreas (which wasn't that well optimized itself) and display cities than have it look like Morrowind with bloom and show 5 people.

if you want more people to talk to, get ready for the same voice actors....oblivion couldnt hire 100's of voice actors for all their guys but they had a large city...if you want something like that in fallout get ready for consequences
Or *gasp* no voice actors for non-important NPCs! This could lead to some even more ground breaking concepts like randomly generated dialogue (like in Daggerfall)!

Not to mention it'd really increase the quality of the game considering how laughably bad some of the voice-overs are. Just listen to any male ghoul, the actor's so preoccupied trying to do the raspy voice he forgets to put any emotion into it. And what's really daunting is that they insist on reusing the same voice actors from their previous games despite how bad they turned out. Either that or the same director, whoever's responsible (although I doubt the director's responsible for failed attempts at emotions like anger).
Logged

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #460 on: December 17, 2008, 08:03:44 pm »

ive never played crysis but isnt that a FPS that doesnt have 100's of different 3-D movable physics controlled objects, NPCs that each have their own voices and things to say, a freaking huge map, and enough quests to keep you playing for days? dont compare such a big game's graphics to a small one's that uses the same requirmenrs


why put in extra NPCs if they are not going to do anything important? 3 out of 4 NPCs had something to do with a quest. as for the ghouls emotion, i dont think id have any left after a life of having my flesh peel off and being hit by people.....
Logged

Cthulhu

  • Bay Watcher
  • A squid
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #461 on: December 17, 2008, 08:08:04 pm »

If I remember right, the problem with the voice actors is they hired professional live-action actors, instead of amateur voice-actors.  Not only did they cost more, but they also sucked at voiceovers.
Logged
Shoes...

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #462 on: December 17, 2008, 08:17:54 pm »

whats the difference between voice actors and voice overs?
Logged

Sergius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout 3, stupider than I imagined.
« Reply #464 on: December 17, 2008, 09:13:25 pm »

whats the difference between voice actors and voice overs?
He's saying that they hired regular actors that act like in movies and crap (such as Lynda Carter) and cost a pretty penny), instead of specialized voice-actors that do voice-overs for radio, TV ads, cartoons, whatever and are cheaper.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 53