|
The Rage posted:^^^ I've really never understood the hate for FO3. The expansions were kinda lovely, but I played it as much as I have F:NV. Fallout 3 is my favorite Elder Scrolls game. It sucks as a Fallout game, however.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
I think at its core the hate for Fallout 3 is that it isn't 1 or 2, in spite of the fact that it is largely a good game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
Beardless Riker posted:I think at its core the hate for Fallout 3 is that it isn't 1 or 2, in spite of the fact that it is largely a good game. Believe it or not, I never played Fallout 1 or 2 before 3. Even when I played it, I liked it but it a lot of it didn't jive well with me and after I had finished it I had a bad taste in my mouth from it. Fun game, but not a good game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
The issue is really that while Fallout 3 might be a perfectly fun game in its own right, it is a bad Fallout game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Regarding the issue of decay in New Vegas: It reminds me of a lot of places I've seen third world countries. Things are broken and people don't bother to fix them, trash is left strewn about and things are just plain dirty and worn down. Part of it is because of lack of resources, part of it is focus on just plain survival, a lot of it is lack of social cohesion. Freeside looks like cities in Africa I've been too. Actually the contrast between Freeside and The Strip is pretty fitting. I've been to cities in countries where most people live on less than a dollar a day, that still have elaborate luxury hotels(that for all their glitz, still look somewhat shoddily maintained and look older than they actually are) and pristine golf courses completely surrounded by shantytowns. I wonder if anyone at Obsidian spent time in extremely poor countries, and if that inspired the atmosphere at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 07:56
|
|
|
Beardless Riker posted:I think at its core the hate for Fallout 3 is that it isn't 1 or 2, in spite of the fact that it is largely a good game. A lot of it is the fact that it suffers from Bethesda writing. Most of the quests were similar to the Megaton bomb. Do you want to kill a bunch of innocent people for no reason? y/n? Umm, no, I'm not a psychopath. But I do enjoy being attacked by Talon company mercs for no real reason beyond the Evulzzz. At least when the Legion sends death squads after me it makes sense. (Huh, guess they object to me setting fire to the head of their intelligence unit, then wearing his doghat.) thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
In their defense, it IS a sweet hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
Necroskowitz posted:I've tried that. Every time I use his incognito base ID I just get this weird message about scripts. There doesn't seem to be a give me quest command or else I'd just use that. You want his incognito refid. prid [refid] moveto.player If I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 09:48
|
|
|
Police Automaton posted:I don't get it either, I played FO3 a lot and especially the world design was really, really nice. Individual bits are ok, but the world overall made no sense. A town of slavers a few hundred yards away from a town of children being the prime example. Where do people get food, for another?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Individual bits are ok, but the world overall made no sense. A town of slavers a few hundred yards away from a town of children being the prime example. Where do people get food, for another? Still a lot better and more interesting to look at then most stuff in NV. FO3 had the Metro, tons of deserted, run-down factories, private dwellings and warehouses, the Washington inner city district which had a nice atmosphere, places like the hospital etc. and as a contrast the wide open empty space in the west. Even if the map wasn't that big it felt really big because of all the little different places you could visit and explore. They weren't amazing by themselves or had epic quests connected to them, but they were nice to visit and look at and gave the game a sense of scale. (And well, things to kill, which you run out of in NV outside of quests roughly mid-game) In NV you have that gas station, that other gas station, the sewers that apparently were unfinished and lead nowhere and that factory building you can't go inside because the door has been nailed up. Also the scale and distance between things is even more way off than it is with FO3. You have completly untouched treasure troves of pre-war technology literally in 5 minutes walking distance of human settlements. Then again, proper scale is an impossible thing to do. To be fair, the DLCs sort of correct that by giving you a lot more places to explore, but they're all tied to quests, sometimes I just want to walk off and kill stuff, with the only explanation needed that "they" were hostile towards me. Bethesda is really good at designing places like this, as they've also shown again in skyrim. A combination of strong writing and places you can just fuckoff and sandbox in would be pure bliss. Sadly this is a thing mods could easily expand on but never did in NV. You don't even need voice acting nor new art assets to do it. Hell, you wouldn't even need to place buildings, you could just make new interior cells and connect some of the unusuable doors to them. The few mods that do it like AWOP are sadly utter poo poo of low quality with huge balance issues. Police Automaton fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
Police Automaton posted:stuff I do agree that vanilla FO3 has more interesting locations than vanilla FO:NV, but the world building is absolutely terrible. The locations are spread over the map all scattershot with no rhyme or reason, none of the factions have any sort of power structure or depth (with the exception of the BoS, who are incredibly bland gruff good guys) and none of the settlements make any sense. Nothing in FO3 is believable. Additionally, the FO:NV DLCs all give you pretty cool and interesting environments to explore, with OWB and Lonesome Road being the standouts in my mind. It's depressing to me that FO:NV performed less well than FO3 critically because it's a far more intelligent and immersive game, but I get that a lot of people just want to shoot raiders and lob mini-nukes at gigantic mutants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
I loved FO3 despite its flaws. Plot kind of sucked at places, but I'm more of a 'take my time, explore and discover the map' kind of person anyway. Seriously I loving loved the markers on your compass, "cool, another blank dot, let's see what's over there!" It was fun to explore. What gets tedious is that a lot of the metro area was broken up by subway tunnels. I realize that it was needed to make the world map 'work' without being hugely laggy, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
I think there is some military grade nostalgia at work here. I`m pretty glad Fallout 3 is not considered a true "Fallout" game because both fallout one and two were pretty bad and unplayable. Being turn based when you only control one character slows the game to a crawl. The movement grid makes you freak out when running anywhere Most perks and traits just flat out suck and others are vastly overpowered. Followers AI is really bad. Nonsensical enemy difficulty curve. Useability of dialogue is unbalanced sometimes you have six options to treat a certain situation and other times only one for seemingly no reason. The useability of skills is greatly unbalanced. You can put points in computer hacking for the 5 computers in the game you can hack but other computers are untouchable for some reason. Solutions to problems that make no sense like sticking an explosive on a pole to a cart makes it exploded rubble better. Stats tremendously unbalanced some stats are near useless while others are basically required. All protagonists are agile supermen because of how vital action points are to every aspect of the game. Item bartering is clever at first but just more busy work to do the simplest things considering there is no wavering in items value during bartering. Area design consisted of the same burnt out brown prefab building chucks with empty containers and nameless npc`s with shared dialogue. Half of Fallout 2 was pop culture jokes and silly talking monsters. I think both were very influential in promoting something other that a typical fantasy RPG world and that is commendable. As a fan of post apocalypse stories, retro futurism and of the 1950`s I Wanted desperately to enjoy these games but they just don't work. Luckily all the interesting parts of the IP got salvaged and we were able to move forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
VocalizePlayerDeath posted:I think there is some military grade nostalgia at work here. People are saying it's not a true Fallout game because the writing is lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Did you play them when they came out or years later? I assume this will greatly affect how one remembers them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
VocalizePlayerDeath posted:I think there is some military grade nostalgia at work here. Pretty much everything you've said could be applied to Fallout 3. It's rather funny really. @Police Automaton, I won't argue individual taste, but the metro tunnels were some of the most absurdly poor design I have ever seen. Poor lighting, repetitive environments, no signposting, and loads of enemies made it a boring slog. It was literally the designers padding out the game because they couldn't think of anything more interesting. It is made even worse by the in-game implication that traders regularly travel through the tunnels on their way to Rivet City. Merry Magpie fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
VocalizePlayerDeath posted:I think there is some military grade nostalgia at work here. Thank you for your helpful opinion. Here's why Fallout 3 was bad and unplayable: The engine is wonky as poo poo and the game is based on first person shooting gameplay, but enemies, just like in Oblivion, shoot you as they walk towards you in a straight line. If they don't have guns, they run towards you in a straight line as you shoot them. VATS is a win button. It has something like 80 or 90 percent damage reduction. The dialogue is mind numbing. For as "bad" as FO2 was, FO3 sure had no qualms about lifting the plot wholesale. The Enclave are somehow the bad guys... even though we destroyed them in FO2? Okay, so the Enclave's plan was to take over Project Purity, a thing that was meant to make all the wasteland's poisonous, irradiated water usable, and then use it to their own ends to um, poison the water supply and, uh Every FO3 character ends up at 10/10/10/10/10/10 with 100 skill points in everything. Enemies are bullet sponges with thousands and thousands of hit points. The DLCs are terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
Bilal posted:VATS is a win button. It has something like 80 or 90 percent damage reduction. 90% damage is ignored during V.A.T.S. If memory serves, it stacks with regular damage reduction which caps at 85%. For every 100 damage, a player in V.A.T.S. with a decent suit of armor will take 1.5 points of damage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
FO3 is bad because there are large areas of the game where there is no alternative to combat, the moral depravity is somewhat dulled (no selling spouses into slavery or planting grenades for child pickpockets here), the Brotherhood of Steel is made into laughable comic-book "good guys" when part of the original setting was that no one was really a good guy, you end up basically being godlike, oh and the whole entire plot. Your dad just up and leaves to go finish "Project Purity" without telling you and doesn't think about the fact that the Overseer's going to react by trying to kill you? He didn't tell you to "protect" you and then loving doesn't even say "my bad" when it does the opposite? I don't think this is being nitpicky considering it's the basis for the entire plot and was played up as being some great mystery when the game was first being unveiled. Oh and let's not even go into the "it is your destiny" sacrifice where they call you a coward for choosing an ending where no one has to die. Fallout 3 is an okay game but it misses the point of the originals so much. And it wouldn't have to be turn based to "get it." They just loving failed. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
F03 was my introduction in the series so I'll always have a soft spot for it. When I played it for the first time I fell in love with it and have bought the rest of the Fallout games since then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Beardless Riker posted:I think at its core the hate for Fallout 3 is that it isn't 1 or 2, in spite of the fact that it is largely a good game. The main problem with FO3 is that it's basically the plot of 2, but shittier. It's a soulless game that goes through the motions of "Fallout things" without ever having a single original or interesting thought of its own. I don't even like the first two games on account of the actual core gameplay being fairly miserably tedious. They do make for a good setting though. Captain Oblivious fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
The Rage posted:^^^ I've really never understood the hate for FO3. The expansions were kinda lovely, but I played it as much as I have F:NV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Fallout 3 was a fun game and compared to Oblivion and Skyrim the writing was ok, not like NV but by all means ok. I too wouldn't be able to go back because of some of the gameplay improvements NV has, like different ammo types and crafting all sorts of guff. I have no illusions about FO4 being anything like those two though, I wouldn't be suprised if they go in a completly different direction gamewise, I wouldn't even be suprised if they would get rid of SPECIAL and would dumb things down a bit more, seeing what a huge success skyrim was. In this industry, if something is as successful as skyrim was everyone who does things in a genre even remotely connected to it will try to copy it 1:1 in spirit. Police Automaton fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Police Automaton posted:Still a lot better and more interesting to look at then most stuff in NV. FO3 had the Metro, tons of deserted, run-down factories, private dwellings and warehouses, the Washington inner city district which had a nice atmosphere, places like the hospital etc. and as a contrast the wide open empty space in the west. Even if the map wasn't that big it felt really big because of all the little different places you could visit and explore. They weren't amazing by themselves or had epic quests connected to them, but they were nice to visit and look at and gave the game a sense of scale. (And well, things to kill, which you run out of in NV outside of quests roughly mid-game) The environment in FO3 has no signposting whatsoever and the main quest takes place within a tiny section of the map. That made me miss out on an overwhelmingly high percentage of the content in that game because I never would've thought to go to any of the places on the map. You don't even need to go into DC proper to complete the game! Rather than encouraging exploration, you end up with quests like the Wasteland Survival Guide one that sequence break the main quest. The subways make this even worse. I think I walked entirely around the outside of DC looking for an entrance of some kind before finding out that I need to enter into one specific station and then crawl around the subway tunnels in order to get into DC. Then there never seems to be any way to figure out which tunnels go where, which eventually just frustrated me rather than making me want to explore DC more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
I recall that there were in game subway maps that were fairly self explanatory. Maps would show "X Line (town) to (other town)" and then you just went through X line, which was clearly marked. Funnily enough, the only one I had a problem finding was the one on the way to Operation: Anchorage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:I recall that there were in game subway maps that were fairly self explanatory. Maps would show "X Line (town) to (other town)" and then you just went through X line, which was clearly marked. No offense, but I recommend replaying it. Those train lines were arbitrarily blocked off with rubble so you had to reroute through different areas. There is no direct path through the metro station. You must transfer between stations to go from Three Dog to Rivet City. To put it in perspective, here's the in game map you're referring to: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Metro Here's a map that shows you how to navigate the subways: http://www.giantbomb.com/guides/dc-metro-ruins-transit-map/483/ This is not good design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Merry Magpie posted:No offense, but I recommend replaying it. Those train lines were arbitrarily blocked off with rubble so you had to reroute through different areas. There is no direct path through the metro station. You must transfer between stations to go from Three Dog to Rivet City. It doesn't really help that the in-game map is about as helpful as a colourful metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
FauxGateau posted:It doesn't really help that the in-game map is about as helpful as a colourful metaphor. I kind of half liked and half hated that design, mostly because I enjoy good exploration but loving hate it when its a pain in the rear end to navigate or at least keep track of where you are/at/been because of terrible tools to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:I kind of half liked and half hated that design, mostly because I enjoy good exploration but loving hate it when its a pain in the rear end to navigate or at least keep track of where you are/at/been because of terrible tools to do so. There is a time and a place for labyrinths. Plopping one in the way of the Main Quest is infuriating because it has no impact, undermines the setting, and kills any momentum in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:FO3 is bad because there are large areas of the game where there is no alternative to combat, the moral depravity is somewhat dulled (no selling spouses into slavery or planting grenades for child pickpockets here), the Brotherhood of Steel is made into laughable comic-book "good guys" when part of the original setting was that no one was really a good guy, you end up basically being godlike, oh and the whole entire plot. I don't hate Fallout 3 or anything but the fact that, in a game where ~your choices matter~ at the beginning your dad leaves, you literally escape death at the hands of the Overseer and whenever you meet up with him and he's like "Why didn't you stay in the safety of the vault dumbass" you are never allowed to say "I would have but then I would've been murdered entirely because of you." Instead your options are "I left to find you!" or "gently caress you dad I do what I want!" as if there was ever a choice in the matter. That kind of obvious oversight in the main quest is kind of indicative of the effort made, really. Police Automaton posted:Still a lot better and more interesting to look at then most stuff in NV. FO3 had the Metro, tons of deserted, run-down factories, private dwellings and warehouses, the Washington inner city district which had a nice atmosphere, places like the hospital etc. and as a contrast the wide open empty space in the west. Even if the map wasn't that big it felt really big because of all the little different places you could visit and explore. They weren't amazing by themselves or had epic quests connected to them, but they were nice to visit and look at and gave the game a sense of scale. (And well, things to kill, which you run out of in NV outside of quests roughly mid-game) You can walk around killing poo poo in NV, there's just generally a better backstory as to the poo poo you're trying to kill, and usually an alternate option where you can resolve issues non-violently. Hell, you can even make more pure combat by wearing Legion armor around the NCR, and then you won't even have to hear stuff like "dialogue" or "plot" because everyone will start shooting at you on-sight! It's win-win, really. Is it really better to just have a faceless armor of Talon mercs who have no quests, no dialogue and try to kill you and everyone else for literally no reason? Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
The thing that pissed me off the most about FO3 was that it gives you all these neat little places to explore and sidequests to do... but it punishes you for it by short circuiting the main plot line. Who the gently caress thought it was a good idea to make it likely to accidentally trip over your dad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I don't hate Fallout 3 or anything but the fact that, in a game where ~your choices matter~ at the beginning your dad leaves, you literally escape death at the hands of the Overseer and whenever you meet up with him and he's like "Why didn't you stay in the safety of the vault dumbass" you are never allowed to say "I would have but then I would've been murdered entirely because of you." Instead your options are "I left to find you!" or "gently caress you dad I do what I want!" as if there was ever a choice in the matter. Indeed, the player is never allowed to actually express or at least vent the momentum of the plot up to that point onto what should be a huge, central NPC who just ends up being window-dressing for the rest of the game. Its really sad too since the portion of the game before you finally get to engage with him was brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:Indeed, the player is never allowed to actually express or at least vent the momentum of the plot up to that point onto what should be a huge, central NPC who just ends up being window-dressing for the rest of the game. Its really sad too since the portion of the game before you finally get to engage with him was brilliant. People really like that section. I have more mixed feelings. On the one hand, it's a neat little murder sandbox with some of the best scripted sequences in the game. On the other hand, it also has no impact, undermines the setting, and kills any momentum in the game. It should have been optional content.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Tendales posted:The thing that pissed me off the most about FO3 was that it gives you all these neat little places to explore and sidequests to do... but it punishes you for it by short circuiting the main plot line. Who the gently caress thought it was a good idea to make it likely to accidentally trip over your dad? The same thing happened to me in New Vegas on my first character. I traveled over Black Mountain when I got out of Goodspings and then went strait to The Strip. I walked into The Tops with Veronica and found Benny before I had even been to Primm. I was just walking along didn't even notice him until I got to close and my camera snapped to his face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Individual bits are ok, but the world overall made no sense. A town of slavers a few hundred yards away from a town of children being the prime example. Where do people get food, for another? This was mentioned way back in this thread, but one thing that always irritated me was Tenpenny Towers. It's supposedly this incredibly nice, posh place that's defended like a fortress and where all the "rich" people live. I get there, and it's one lovely hotel with a wall and two or three mercenaries, filled with idle rich, and surrounded by wasteland. Where do they get their food? Why are these people rich? Do they DO anything? If there was a trading post or sharecropper farms or SOMETHING nearby you could handwave it by saying "Oh, the people in the Tower are at the top of this particular social heap", but there isn't. It's just rubble and radscorpions for miles around, nothing but those ghouls who want to get in. It makes no drat sense, even by my pretty high tolerance for lovely video game "logic".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
Merry Magpie posted:
You really love this phrase. I really don't understand how it does any of those three either. I actually thought it had the most impact of the entire game, which is the reason why it leaves people with such a strong impression(mostly positive), is perfectly consistent with the 50s weird-science theme of the game, and so on. In fact the plot felt really haphazard and stumbly up to that point, like it really didn't like you and did as little as possible just to kick you back out into the wasteland and on your way. For full disclosure I didn't really like F03 as a whole, but felt this portion had merit and was worth the time spent which I can't say for the rest of the game. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
I've tried for almost a hundred hours to get into New Vegas (note this time includes 2 characters attempts lost due to computer problems) but I've pretty much given up. I don't care about any of the quests I've run into, I've seen exactly one place that wasn't terrible to explore and the overland map is beyond dull. People kept saying it would get better when I got to New Vegas itself but as soon as I arrived all I wanted to do was leave. 1 > 3 = 2 > NV.
7c Nickel fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
VocalizePlayerDeath posted:The same thing happened to me in New Vegas on my first character. I don't know about you guys but it's an excellent thing that you can short-circuit the plot lines if you ask me, and very "Fallout-y". Of course, in some instances it can be handled a lot better (like with dad in Fallout 3), but if there's one thing a Fallout game doesn't need it's too many "plot nodes" that you *have* to go through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Without FO3 there would have been no New Vegas, and that's really all I can say on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
Leinadi posted:I don't know about you guys but it's an excellent thing that you can short-circuit the plot lines if you ask me, and very "Fallout-y". Of course, in some instances it can be handled a lot better (like with dad in Fallout 3), but if there's one thing a Fallout game doesn't need it's too many "plot nodes" that you *have* to go through. The difference between the two is that if you go to New Vegas in the game called New Vegas, it's pretty reasonable to find the main plot line there. It's not as reasonable to be exploring in bumfuck nowhere, and be suddenly told that a quarter of the storyline has just been deleted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 22:53
|
|