Print

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

[Neonivek]

"Besides, having a massivly open world and then ending the story completely is stupid"

Some games have done it by basically rewinding time to before you saved the world except with all the loot and experience from doing so.

That is one thing they could have done without changing the ending.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

And that's where things DO get stupid. Why couldn't have we just sent our Super Mutant companion in? He's IMMUNE to radiation, it would be STUPID not to think of that. And its impossible NOT to meet him, he's part of the main quest.

I presume that he did that because he wanted to honor you. This is your chance to be in the history book as the Hero! HERO! Why should he take all the credit? Think of the fame that you'll get for sacrificing your life for the good of D.C.! All that fame leads to immortality, and immortality is a nice thing to have. Meanwhile, he doesn't need any fame, he's fine with being an obscure philosopher.

"Some pirates achieved immortality by great deeds of cruelty or derring-do. Some achieved immortality by amassing great wealth. But the captain had long ago decided that he would, on the whole, prefer to achieve immortality by not dying." - Terry Pratchett, The Colour of Magic.

The problem is, you will die, as you are still a human being. It's not a choice between living and dying, it's a choice of either dying heroically by committing self-sacrifice, even when there are others who could do the deed...or dying ignobly later on in life when the player decides to forget about playing TES: Fallout and. It is better to die in a blaze of (nuclear) glory than it is to go out in a whimper, which is what I believe you guys are desiring here.

So you're saying it's better to live a short miserable life and die heroically so that people will write down your name in a history book and claim that your opinions on modern issues would support their own than it is to live a long full life even though either way you'll end up dead?  What a terribly archaic way of looking at things.

[Vucar Fikodastesh]

The problem with having it open ended like that, from a developers standpoint, is that all the random townspeople need new dialog to reflect the huge changes in the world. This is especially bad in FO3 with all the voice acting.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

The problem with having it open ended like that, from a developers standpoint, is that all the random townspeople need new dialog to reflect the huge changes in the world. This is especially bad in FO3 with all the voice acting.

BTW, Broken Steel let's you play after the "ending" so it's not so much that they couldn't do it, as much as they didn't do it.

[Muz]

I really didn't enjoy FO3. It was just too... big, but without any depth. Lol, my sister got pissed that I could one-shot kill the Enclave guys with a sniper rifle without using VATS. Advanced Power Armor indeed.

FO2: Small world, lots of NPC interaction, detailed, persistent world, and all your actions will affect the future, sluggish combat engine
FO3: Huge world, lots of secrets, fun combat engine, but very generic items, even more generic NPCs, and no matter what you do, you're still a small fish in the end

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I rather liked Fallout's combat system.

[Muz]

I rather liked it too.. but on some parts it was just tedious. Like at the start, or when you're chasing down people, or in places with lots of bystanders, or the dungeon crawls.

[Lonewolf]

Yeah, the developers did their job at making a game. But the way they did it - that's a different story. Everywhere you go, you feel it - something's not right. It's all too "fun and games", "how do you do?" and the like. Hell, sometimes it goes as far as "hello kitty". The atmosphere's what I'm talking about.

I mean, it's like staying at a luxurious hotel (even though you hate all the fancy stuff around) after one of those tiresome days you're so used to, then being welcomed right before your room by some guy who's paid for making visitors "feel like at home". Then, after you get rid of the bastard, you enter the room, explore it - and guess what? The room service was so thoughtful they even placed more "nice" stuff, as "nice" as it gets. I mean, all the rich dads who stay here prefer that kind of treatment - they're used to it, even more, they'd leave the place right away if it wasn't. But hey, I've got a whole hell behind me - I don't care if the pillows aren't fluffed. It feels alien and primitive, makes me wish I slept outside. Of town. As far away from that hospitality as possible.

That's the same feeling I get when trying to play Fallout 3. I've finished Fallout 1 and 2 several times, i'm used to the wastes where the green ones are no more than food. This is the welcome you get in the original games. If you're nothing - you won't last long. That's what I miss the most, even more than the combat and roleplaying systems. VATS mode is unrealistic, and the gore with the slow-mo - it's just not serious. The game (or at least the combat) should've been made in 3rd person view like in the first Neverwinter Nights or Van Buren, that way combat would be more logical, real-time, but with regular pausing so you can plan your characters next action. Not to mention the fact that it is your character who is supposed to aim, not you. That's why I consider it to be a shooter.

In short, Fallout 3 turned out to be a game - just a game, no more. But that's no different than a painting turning out to be no more than a picture on your calendar, without a soul, depth and the like. And the bad thing is, most of the games flawes are hard-coded or otherwise too difficult to fix, just like in the Elder Scrolls games with it's dreadful AI (Morrowind) and obligatory voiced dialogue (Oblivion and this game).

[cowofdoom78963]

VATS mode is unrealistic, and the gore with the slow-mo - it's just not serious.

Ill have to disagree with you there, in earlier fallout games there were much more silly looking deaths.

[Neonivek]

VATS mode is unrealistic, and the gore with the slow-mo - it's just not serious.

Ill have to disagree with you there, in earlier fallout games there were much more silly looking deaths.

You mean like melting into a pile of green goo?

Yeah I remember that one.

[Muz]

Too nice? Lol, I thought FO3 was harsher than FO1 and 2, it's a bit depressing even. Everything was just ruined. I mean, there's no proper civilizations, plenty of cannibalism, bloodsuckers, etc. There was no soul to it, true.

I think Bethesda doing FO3 was the worst choice they could make.. both use completely different styles. You love one or the other.

VATS was fun, IMHO, unrealistic, yes, especially when you hide, pop up, VATS-shot the enemy, then hide waiting for your AP to regen. No tactics to it. Unlike in FO2 or 1.. both were horribly unbalanced, had a lot of redundant 'flavor' things, but it had plenty of tactical approaches to it. What you chose to do matters. In FO3, you could just run around, with almost no ammo, completely radiated, randomly choosing your skills and perks, and you still won't regret it later.

The computer doesn't get to use VATS on you, so it's not really fair.

[Ampersand]

I think the worst thing is that in FO2, for example, if you run into the Enclave early in the game, you're screwed royally.

In Fallout 3, you can either run, or circle strafe them while beating them over the head with a pipe until they die. There's no fear in it.

[Virtz]

Too nice? Lol, I thought FO3 was harsher than FO1 and 2, it's a bit depressing even. Everything was just ruined. I mean, there's no proper civilizations, plenty of cannibalism, bloodsuckers, etc. There was no soul to it, true.

Yes, it's hard to tell it's been 200 years after the war when it comes to buildings and landscape. But when it comes to the people, they seem preoccupied with random bullshit rather than survival or restoring humanity.

Take Tenpenny for example, he decides to go industry giant on the wasteland, starting with a hotel for rich people and going on to flattening a nearby settlement with a nuke (and the nuke failed to do even that) because apparently it taints the view from his hotel.

Or Moira Brown, preoccupied with making a book of stupid and acting like a fucking cartoon.

With morons like these, you have to wonder how the hell they survived all these years till you came along. And these imbeciles are probably a direct result of people telling Bethesda their writing was better in Shivering Isles. It wasn't. It was full of cretinous (/cartoony) visions of what mad people look and talk like with few exceptions. As a result, we have something closer to Idiocracy than to Fallout. Which wouldn't be bad if this was Idiocracy: The Game, not Fallout 3.

200 years after the war, the East should have its own Vault City or at least NCR. But it looks like a constant warzone, completely devoid of agriculture or any other spark of intelligence.

[WorkerDrone]

Okay, so...the people are idiots and some or all are cartoony?

I guess so. Not that it matters. I'm kinda to busy to care about their intelligence when I only want to blow their brains out with an assault rifle.

[Zironic]

I believe the east got the worst of it. At least it's how I ration it. I was kind of disappointed at the lack of large cities. I thought rivet city was going to be huge.