Is it normal to rage at Fallout 3 ??
- Thread starter Joey Corlett
- Start date
Recommended Videos
like I said FO3 is far from perfect in the morality side of things (one of the games main weaknesses)....but I stil like having that backstory and all that, I mean your from a vault eather way, you back story cant be that variedChupathingyX said:
I thought Fallout 3 was mediocre, the shooting felt uncomfortable, the characters were irrational, your father was an idiot, there were no doors to get off the train and was left to ride the rails, laughing at the sights. Then I hit the stupidest thing I have ever experienced in a videogame in a long time. Little Lamplight, the town whose very existance implys childhood sex and subsequent births, and whose existance makes no sense. And then, THEN the game has to blindly insane move of forcing me to ACTUALLY DEAL WITH THESE KIDS. They are children? How are they holding off the army of slavers. Actually more important HOW ARE THEY HOLDING OFF THE UNENDING TIDE OF SUPERMUTANTS?
That broke everything, a mediocre game was reduced to an utterly painful experience.
That broke everything, a mediocre game was reduced to an utterly painful experience.
Thats probably the core difference between someone like you and someone like me when we look for an RPG. Your looking to see someone else's story. Im looking to create MY story.Vault101 said:
Thats, for me, one of the most important and powerful aspects of the Fallout series, and F3 did not allow you to do so.
Well I've played FO3 and NV, but I'm also pretty well versed in the lore, so here's my take on it.
FO:3 and NV were both great games, but they also had very different strengths and weaknesses that reflected their different developers. FO3 had a bad story, mediocre characters, and generally fell down when it came to plot related stuff. But it absolutelly excelled in the actual gameworld. Compare this to NV, which had a great story to tell, but really lacked atmosphere.
I'll try and demonstrate through some examples. Compare the moments from the two games when you first stepped out into the wasteland. In FO3, after going through a hectic escape from the Vault, the door slid open with a huge sound of grinding and screaming metal. Then you walk down a tunnel, silent as the grave, with centuries old skeletons at your feet. Open the door at the end, and step out. It takes a moment for your eyes to adjust, and then the view hits you. Slowly walking up to the scenic lookout, you see the bone dry wastes, a ruined road littered with burnt out cars, a massive broken off overpass to your right. Further down their's the ruins of a small town, an enclave eyebot floats down the street, broadcasting patriotic tunes. Then you get to the school, which is your first introduction to the brutality of the raiders, again a marvelous piece of carefully thought out atmosphere.
Compare this to NV. You wake up to find Doc Mitchell smiling down on you. Then a character creation stage that takes all of 5 minutes as you walk around his house, not very interesting. He gives you a vault jumpsuit, which you really don't feel much attachment to, and you walk out the door. Your first view of the wastes is........ a small backwards town straight out of a Wild West movie. Victor the robot rolls down just ahead of you, and talking to him quickly gets old by your second character. Then you go out with Sunny Smiles and do a few errands shooting geckos. Ho Hum. Then, after more great tracts of words that gets tedious to go through, you get into your first quest. I'm sure you all know how it goes, but it means that it takes AGES before anything exciting happens.
And don't get me started on the Mojave Wasteland itself. It was a whole load of nothing. In FO3 you could start walking in any direction and eventually hit an interesting old ruin to loot. For me at least, a large part of the FO3 experience was simply exploring the wastes, because the Capital Wasteland was brimming with stuff while still managing to feel empty and desolate. But the Mojave Wasteland feels empty and desolate because it IS empty and desolate, which is the bad kind of empty and desolate. Exploring was not very rewarding and it was mostly there to create some space between the towns.
Part of this is becauseof the atmosphere, which has a number of elements I'll try to tie together here. First of all; ambient music, another area where FO3 excells. It was just right, and combined with the sound of the wind whistling through the dust, made the wasteland feel alive. Overall, Bethesda put a ton of time into creating the wasteland itself. It made simply running along with only the sound of my own steps for company something that I actually liked. If that got boring, than I'd simply turn on the radio.
FO3 had much better radio stations than NV. This is fact. Three Dog, though he felt a bit flat as a charcter when you actually met him, made really great broadcasts and had a fine selection of music. His NV equivalent, Mr New Vegas, cannot match up. I suppose this is because in Fallout 3 you were a really major player in the wastes, and listening to Three Dog talk about you in his broadcasts was one of the greatest things in FO3's ambience in my opinion. Mr NV,on the other hand, has bigger fish to fry than talking about one courier, so his broadcasts are a lot more impersonal. Not to mention that the choice of music Obsidian put into the radio stations REALLY gets old after a while, and has nowhere near the repeatability of FO3's tunes.
Now this is sounding like a huge NV bash, and it's true that I prefer FO3 to NV, but NV was great too. It had more features that I absolutely loved, such as disguises and mods. It had better voice acting, and a half way decent plot. Thhe character creation was also more flexible.
My point is that for the next Fallout game, my ideal set up would be to have Obsidian write the story, envision the locations, and handle everything relating to the lore and what features actually appear in the game. Then let Bethesda do their stuff and actually build the world, making slight modifications to Obsidian's ideas to improve their impact. And, of course, use Skyrim's engine. That is what I believe would lead to the perfect Fallout game.
FO:3 and NV were both great games, but they also had very different strengths and weaknesses that reflected their different developers. FO3 had a bad story, mediocre characters, and generally fell down when it came to plot related stuff. But it absolutelly excelled in the actual gameworld. Compare this to NV, which had a great story to tell, but really lacked atmosphere.
I'll try and demonstrate through some examples. Compare the moments from the two games when you first stepped out into the wasteland. In FO3, after going through a hectic escape from the Vault, the door slid open with a huge sound of grinding and screaming metal. Then you walk down a tunnel, silent as the grave, with centuries old skeletons at your feet. Open the door at the end, and step out. It takes a moment for your eyes to adjust, and then the view hits you. Slowly walking up to the scenic lookout, you see the bone dry wastes, a ruined road littered with burnt out cars, a massive broken off overpass to your right. Further down their's the ruins of a small town, an enclave eyebot floats down the street, broadcasting patriotic tunes. Then you get to the school, which is your first introduction to the brutality of the raiders, again a marvelous piece of carefully thought out atmosphere.
Compare this to NV. You wake up to find Doc Mitchell smiling down on you. Then a character creation stage that takes all of 5 minutes as you walk around his house, not very interesting. He gives you a vault jumpsuit, which you really don't feel much attachment to, and you walk out the door. Your first view of the wastes is........ a small backwards town straight out of a Wild West movie. Victor the robot rolls down just ahead of you, and talking to him quickly gets old by your second character. Then you go out with Sunny Smiles and do a few errands shooting geckos. Ho Hum. Then, after more great tracts of words that gets tedious to go through, you get into your first quest. I'm sure you all know how it goes, but it means that it takes AGES before anything exciting happens.
And don't get me started on the Mojave Wasteland itself. It was a whole load of nothing. In FO3 you could start walking in any direction and eventually hit an interesting old ruin to loot. For me at least, a large part of the FO3 experience was simply exploring the wastes, because the Capital Wasteland was brimming with stuff while still managing to feel empty and desolate. But the Mojave Wasteland feels empty and desolate because it IS empty and desolate, which is the bad kind of empty and desolate. Exploring was not very rewarding and it was mostly there to create some space between the towns.
Part of this is becauseof the atmosphere, which has a number of elements I'll try to tie together here. First of all; ambient music, another area where FO3 excells. It was just right, and combined with the sound of the wind whistling through the dust, made the wasteland feel alive. Overall, Bethesda put a ton of time into creating the wasteland itself. It made simply running along with only the sound of my own steps for company something that I actually liked. If that got boring, than I'd simply turn on the radio.
FO3 had much better radio stations than NV. This is fact. Three Dog, though he felt a bit flat as a charcter when you actually met him, made really great broadcasts and had a fine selection of music. His NV equivalent, Mr New Vegas, cannot match up. I suppose this is because in Fallout 3 you were a really major player in the wastes, and listening to Three Dog talk about you in his broadcasts was one of the greatest things in FO3's ambience in my opinion. Mr NV,on the other hand, has bigger fish to fry than talking about one courier, so his broadcasts are a lot more impersonal. Not to mention that the choice of music Obsidian put into the radio stations REALLY gets old after a while, and has nowhere near the repeatability of FO3's tunes.
Now this is sounding like a huge NV bash, and it's true that I prefer FO3 to NV, but NV was great too. It had more features that I absolutely loved, such as disguises and mods. It had better voice acting, and a half way decent plot. Thhe character creation was also more flexible.
My point is that for the next Fallout game, my ideal set up would be to have Obsidian write the story, envision the locations, and handle everything relating to the lore and what features actually appear in the game. Then let Bethesda do their stuff and actually build the world, making slight modifications to Obsidian's ideas to improve their impact. And, of course, use Skyrim's engine. That is what I believe would lead to the perfect Fallout game.
Ummm what? They have a passage which leads DIRECTLY to the super mutant base Vault. You know, the massive collection and nerve centre of their activities. So how are any of these kids making it to Little Lamplight? Every five metres something in the wasteland is trying to murder you, the numbers require:Shiny Koi said:
You need to be a kid lost/seperated from adults, have heard of/stumble upon little lamplight AND survive the journey there. Thats a very very small number. No where near enough to have this group survive 200 years and still have a functional community, enforce the aging law AND hold off the slavers.
You sound like a fan, so I don't expect they'll be any reasoning with you. Is it safe to say you were a fan of fallout 3?Ragsnstitches said:
Spoken like a man that has never played SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPER MEAT BOOOOOOOOOOOYYYYYY!!!snakeakaossi said:
Good point, I'd say, if that was a bug. And almost any game can be broken if you know what you're doing. Need I point to the Chinese stealth suit in fallout 3? "wooo I squat down and suddenly I'm invincible!". And what kind of shit was the dart gun?loc978 said:
Anyhow, I played through the original un-patched fallout 2 twenty odd some times and no, it was not rife with "game-breaking" bugs. Despite my best attempts to do everything in the wackiest ways imaginable I never managed to break it. Which is more than I can say for fallout 3 (which I couldn't even finish because every time I went to talk to General Autumn I'd get stuck hearing Sarah go "let's do this." forever.
The realism mod sounds awesome - unfortunately Ive played Fallout 3 already and the spell is broken, and no matter what is added it will be like polishing a turd. Same thing happened with oblivion, oscuros mod was great but the damage was done. SO, for skyrim im assuming it will be as terrible as its predecessors (yes fallout really was oblivion with guns), and plan to wait for a long while till it is fixed with a mod, then hopefully enjoy it...seriously these modders deserve a medal of some kind, andshould be employed by bethesda to show them how to make a game.
Not really, only really mild stuff like leveling to get better gear.kingcom said:
Most FPS's have no more than 5-8 hours of actual play time, so they don't really have the option to be actual RPG's.
If you want an actual RPG, Fallout 3 is not one. In fact, I don't think a single game this generation has a true turn based battle system, at least not one that I've played.
Well if you see someone dash out from behind cover in Fallout 3, if you can press VATS before they fire, you have a higher chance of not getting hit than you do if you wait a second.
Then there is stuff like in Legend of Dragoon, where your base attack is boosted by hitting a button at exact moments during your attack.
You said the difference between an FPS and an RPG that makes "at odds" is that one relies on the person, the other on the character. Or more specifically, one relies on personal skill, the other relies on pure math.
Play Legend of Dragoon without getting a single chain attack, I bet you won't even be able to beat it.
I agree with this. F3 was great fun when I first played it. However once NV came out and I played that I can't go back to F3. But that's just because I was never as emotionally invested with the Lone Wanderer as I was with the CourierShiny Koi said:
I agree with you there, it also didn't help that I felt no attachement to my dad at all in that game and personally didn't care if the bastard never showed up again. Out of curiosity did you like NV? (I looked through the old posts and didn't see you mention it and if you did already I appologize)kingcom said:
I honestly have very little idea as to what your trying to say so forgive me if i misintrepret this. Levelling and gear, the two most recognisable aspects of rpgs (though actually nothing to do with what an rpg is but justifyable as rpg elements)Liudeius said:
RPGs dont have length requirements.
Dont know what you mean by actual RPG, do you mean turn based? (thats a whole debate im not having now)
Does not matter, if your trying to outmaneover someone your sneak should be running that not your trigger finger.
Never played Legend of Dragoon, sounds like your talking about active reload stuff, find that incredibly boring and you appear to be betting me to play a game ive never heard of and not use a core mechanic of the game as it sounds like to beat it. Why would I do that? Seems like its stupid to not use something if have to play the game, doesnt mean I will like it.
No I did not say they rely on maths. All combat in games relys on maths. I said combat in an FPS is resolved by the player entirely and in an RPG its resolves as a result of the characters abilities (as a long term result of the players choices).
I really don't think the radios are really an important point for Fallout games.C-Mag said:
Personally I didn't like either hosts that much, but I preferred Mr New Vegas. Yeah sure Three Dog reports on your actions using his army of ninjas but his voice...was...so...annoying that I was forced to kill him. And Mr New Vegas does actually report on your actions, most people who play the game I guess jus don't realise.
Also the actual sonsg themselves are waaaay too subjective to talk about and bring up. If a game features a radio station with lots of rap then rap fans will like it, but everyone else will be left out. Personally I liked songs from both games and didn't like songs from both games.
Fallout 3 had;
*I don't want to set the world on fire
*Butcher Pete
*Civilization
"Maybe" was featured in the original Fallout so I didn't count it.
Fallout: New vegas had;
*Blue Moon
*Big Iron
*Ain't that a kick in the head
*Jingle, Jangle, Jingle
*Love me as though there was no tomorrow
Plus New vegas had the songs that were written by JE Sawyer and Chris Avellone which were great but not featured enough.
What I'm saying is that both featured some great songs and it's just way too subjective to argue.
Speaking as an Xbox 360 player, Fallout 3 ran amazingly well for me for over 500+ hours. (yes I love the game that much, and I've had since 2008 to play that much 
).
New Vegas on the other hand, well, I began to wonder if they made the game disc out of a wet paper bag.
Because it was unplayable.
And I tried. Oh, I tried.
).New Vegas on the other hand, well, I began to wonder if they made the game disc out of a wet paper bag.
Because it was unplayable.
And I tried. Oh, I tried.
Not the best game ever intially and I really felt a bit let down but once I hit New Vegas itself it was definitely one of the best experiences i've had in a while. Really enjoyed that it let me resolve the overall scenario however I wanted to, making allies or enemies out of practically anyone and thought the idea of a central conflict forcing player to end up with hostilies with atleast one faction was a really good idea. The plot hand a really nice turn which made everything so clear and the gathering of allies and consequences of your decisions in the path all coming together for the final act of the game was a definite thrilling experience.azraelthor said:
The future of New Vegas was determined by ME, an experience that made the bad start all worth it.
I founded the New California Republic. I united the north-western wasteland under its banner. And now I was responsible for holding Hoover Damn and creating the largest most stable force in the US. A force potentially large enough to restore civilisation.
Just something profoundly awesome when your fighting side by side with ex-Enclave troopers and Brotherhood of Steel paladins all working together to hold back the barbarian hordes so to speak.
So now RPG's are about leveling and gear? You were trying to argue that RPG's were about using only math, stats, and strategy, with not reflexive skill, to play. By that definition there is no problem between RPG's and FPS's. Wait... Now you contradict that? If they are recognizable elements but not actually what RPG's are, then they aren't elements that make something an RPG. Rendering your argument illegitimate once again.kingcom said:
Well by your own definition an RPG must be purely turn based. You said that they rely on the Character, meaning the character's stats and damage output based purely on those, with absolutely no reliance on reflexes (like FPS's).
It relies on math, just showing these pixels relies on math, but in an FPS calculations are only done if you hit, hitting relies on reflexes and dexterity.
Active reload? It's not a shooter. Most RPG's these days use some sort of reflexive command or ATB putting more reliance on the reflexes of the player of the game than the stats of the characters. (and Legend of Dragoon is from the PS1 era)
"I said combat in an FPS is resolved by the player entirely and in an RPG its resolves as a result of the characters abilities (as a long term result of the players choices)."
So wait, once again there is not conflict between them.
In Fallout 3, the perks I choose and skills I level drastically influence how much damage I do, regardless of whether I use VATS or play it like an FPS.
The only that would have made that part better would have been if I could have usedkingcom said:
my army of Securitrons to help
This. I never played FO1 or 2, but I really liked 3 and even some parts of NV.Vault101 said:
The rage that I see about deathclaws and cazadors doesn't make much sense to me because I've always been able to take them down with relative ease unless I had the misfortune of being snuck up on.
I don't use VATS except for the rare occasion in combat, and to see what the enemy is if I can't see it on the screen. I never really had glitch issues except for on rare occasion, and even then, I save often, so it's not that big of a deal.
Then again, I'm a fight smarter not harder kind of guy, so even some of the strongest enemies in the game aren't too much of a problem for me unless I don't have enough ammo or are just grossly outnumbered.