And I guess you somehow think that sacrificing the only life you had ever known is a happy ending?Monkeyman8 said:
Poll: Fallout 3: In the true spirit of fallout?
- Thread starter Socius
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Falling on one's sword, in the most common context, refers to pursuit of a duty to one's detriment. Anyone could have gotten the water chip but instead it was up to you. When the wastes revealed just how twisted and miserable life could be you choose to stand against a foe you have almost no hope of defeating. When you finally suceed in your goals, you are barred from a return to your former life and instead found a tribe that scratches a miserable existance from the wastes. I'd say the vault-dwellers duty lead to a detriment in his situation.Axolotl said:
To your second point, I suppose open and accepeted racism, slavery, murder, debauchery, constant threat of annihilation, and the unforgiving wastes themselves paint a happy go lucky picture for you?
But not willingly, the Overseer betrayed the Vault Dweller. If the overseer had said from the start that you wouldn't be able to return then it would count, but he doesn't. The idea of falling on your sword for your duty requires knowing sacrifice, volunteering for a job (even a difficult one) doesn't count and nether does being betrayed.Eclectic Dreck said:
Who accepts any of those things? The only people who practice slavery are the slavers, everybody else looks on as despicable, same with racism, aside from an offhand remark the only people who are racist to the ghouls are the inhabitants to Tenpenny Towers. You still have people like the brotherhood selflessly trying to improve life for everybody. Same with Rivet City and Project Purity, in Fallout 1 the only person who was trying to improve the wastes was The Master, in Fallout 2 everybody practiced slavery except for the Facist NCR. 3 is very optimistic and upbeat compared to 2.
The existiance of slavers implies there is a market for slaves and a degree of acceptance of their existance. People could end the slaver threat but they don't. Additionally, the Pitt DLC seems to imply many of the slaves end up in Pittsburg, where the happiest thing they hope for is a quick death.Axolotl said:
Those at ten-penny tower are racist, but so are the residents of Megaton (the bartender tells you as much), the brotherhood of steel (the residents of the undercity tell you as much), and most of the wastes if we assume Three Dog had a reason to deliver a public service announcment pointing out they don't always need to shoot gouls on sight.
The brotherhood who remain have little explanation for their presence. The few "true believers" are generally high ranking or directly related to the commander. The rest offer no explanation for their devotion to a futile task. Even if we assume that these soldiers are dedicated to the prospect of dying to protect people they don't know, consider for a moment what they fight to preserve. The desperate conditions in which people live will remain unchanged. Raiders and slavers still demonstrate just how despicable humanity can be. The super mutants simply grow in number and even the brotherhood will admit they can see no way to secure victory in their decades long battle. Even if you assume the best about the brotherhood, you still have to realize they represent a tiny glimmer of hope in the wastes.
Even if you progress to the end game, what have you, as a player, accomplished? You've given people clean water to drink and removed one incredibly MINOR threat to their lives (the Enclave, which had virtually zero impact on anybody except the brotherhood of steel and a few scientists). The wasteland is still a wasteland. Humanity remains as flawed as ever. There is still no system of law beyond that which one can secure for themselves. Things in the end are only marginally better than when you started. The only true point where you can find any comfort is knowing that humanity has endured in spite our best efforts to clense the planet of life.
Iplies, but your never shown, the Slavers (and the Raiders) are utterly generic 2d cardboard cut-outs. Tehy have no depth or real character beyond BAD GUYS!! They're utterly out of place in a Fallout game. You can wipe them out with no real consiquences for the rest of the world.Eclectic Dreck said:
Which are all based on offhand remarks that the game refuses to follow up on in any way.
They're happy to explain why their there, to rid the wastes of the Super Mutant threat. Now their gross incompetance aside they are still fundamentally good guys trying to make the world a better place. They're 2d cut-outs of good guys, which is even more out of place in the Fallout series.
None of which are Fallouty themes. The whole game world is still a battle between the cartoonishly good and the cartoonishly evil.Once again the first 2 games were about corrupt societyies and people, in 3 you have a potrayal of a good guys trying to survive in a harsh world, which is not what Fallout is about at all.
I was unaware that the use of inductive reasoning was not allowed when playing a video game. I will make a note of it.Axolotl said:
To your second point, you are correct. Most of the enemies in the game are cardboard cut-outs. Of course, most of the enemies in the other games were also cardboard cut-outs. The only difference? A few more of them might be willing to tell you why they're the bad guys (it's generally because they drew the short straw in the alighment meeting).
Except some quantity of brotherhood became the outcasts and the current brotherhood explores the wastes and can be found fighting whatever happens to be around. I'm not precisely sure what you'd be looking for here? Detailed back story for any of the hundreds of nameless grunts?Axolotl said:
This is of course in spite of the fact that within the narrative of the game we know that a large portion of the brotherhood didn't like playing selfless hero. Again, I'm not precisely sure what more you want out of this. A little more martial discipline? A few more questionably moral choices?Axolotl said:
And, oddly enough, the core story of ALL the fallout games have revolved around cartoonish evil in some way. In the first you have a guy who wants to turn humanity into super mutants. In the second, you have the enclave trying to restore peace by apparently shooting everyone. In Tactics you fight skynet.Axolotl said:
There have been many themes in play in fallout. We have an examination of what desperate people will do to survive. There's also bits about the burden of being the hero, the flaws of humanity, the desolation of the wastes and so on. Just because you refuse to accept these as being "fallouty" doesn't imply they are not present.
Of course, you seem to be intent on proving some sort of grand point that Fallout 3 is worse than the previous games. I'll save you the time - it is better in some ways and worse in others. In most elements regarding how the world works, it's generally worse. In the options the player has for problem resolution (which is where a lot of the character of the old fallouts lay) it's certainly worse. There are few places you can sneak through or negotiate past. In terms of absolute quest density it's certainly lower.
In spite of this, I am still perfectly wiling to regard Fallout 3 as not only a legitimately good game, but also a worthy addition to the series. Enough flaws in the past games were corrected that, on the balance, it's a fair trade. It may not be the fallout I fell in love with more than a decade ago, but it's close enough for me.
In terms of characterization, when present, it's on par as far as I'm concerned. In terms of effective story telling it's at least equal to it's predecessos. In terms of world design it's lightyears ahead.
Of course, you're free to have your opinion about the game.
It's called show don't tell. If you never se anybody actually using the slave then slavery loses all it's impact and the slavers just becomes generic bad guys. Slavery exists in the Capitol Wasteland purely to provide the Lone Wanderer people to kill (or a method of easy profit).Eclectic Dreck said:
Except they weren't okay the raiders in the first game maybe but The Master, Vault City, New Reno's gangs even? They were all much more developed than anyone in Fallout 3, they all had motivations, reasons, plans and were generally much more believable characters.
What I meant there was that they mention racism towards ghouls but apart from Tenpenny Towers (who were proven perfectly justified in hating ghouls) you never see it, once again it loses its impact because the games fails to follow through with it.
The fact that ANY of them want to be selfless heros goes against the Fallout spirit. Nobody in the original games save for the Master was trying to selfless improve the world, except for the plauyer character if you play that way.
The Master is as far from cartoonish vilany as it's possible to get, he's trying to turn people into super mutants because they can survive in the wasteland far better than humans can and because he's seen how corrupt humanity is even after nuking themselves. The Enclave are trying to wipe out everyone infected with the FEV to cleanse the human gene pool, sure they stupid and evil but there done in a realistic way.
But very few people in Fallout 1+2 are in a desperate situation. The games are set after that point in post-apocalypse. Even in 2 the only people who are in a situation that could be classed as desperate are there for economic reasons.And the wastes in the original games are just a backdrop, the only time you see them is when you're in a random encounter, you spend almost all the important game time within civilisation.
I'm not saying it's worse, I have enjoyed playing it several times, it's a great game. I'm saying it fails to carry over the same themes,messages or feeling of the original games.
How on earth is the world design good nevermind better than the originals? World design was easily the worst part of 3.
I must be unique, I actually prefered the characters in Fallout 3 (Ok, just Moira, but I can hardly remember any of the old characters ('cept Jagged Jimmy J)). The world felt a lot more imersive. The graphics and gameplay did it justice. Nothing in the first game struck me as memorable, and not many in the second (despite being far superior to 1). 3 had so many little touches that it really felt like the Fallout world. Though the appearance and dissapearance of trees in regard to the second games stills screws with me.
Hmm..
I'd say I prefer Fallout 3 to it's predecesors. I have played Fallout 1&2 for a bit. But they were very difficult to get into, and the difficulty curve was a nightmare.
On Fallout 3's side, I have to say, it's the only RPG style game that I've playe on a console where I haven't felt like I'm grinding at any point.
However, the characters aren't always done well, and I felt no remorse when massacering a whole illage of innocents.....
I'd say I prefer Fallout 3 to it's predecesors. I have played Fallout 1&2 for a bit. But they were very difficult to get into, and the difficulty curve was a nightmare.
On Fallout 3's side, I have to say, it's the only RPG style game that I've playe on a console where I haven't felt like I'm grinding at any point.
However, the characters aren't always done well, and I felt no remorse when massacering a whole illage of innocents.....
Fallout 3 is a great game and I enjoyed playing it but I think it doesn't deserve the name, well it could but not THE NUMBER, it would be better if it was called Fallout: Project Purity or Cyrodill: Post Apocalypse or something because I think it was a wasted game, Black Isle would have done it 3 times better.
I am an old fallout-fangirl, having played the first two games back in 2000 and 2001 and several times since. I can honestly say I liked Fallout 3. I liked it a lot. As a game it provides the thing that games should deliver, namely entertainment.
Is it true to the Fallout spirit? Yes and no. The surroundings, the feeling of the wasteland and the sights are all very much fallout (more so than Fallout 2 I dare say). Bear with me here, while I explain this. Fallout was a pulp-50's Post Apocalyptic RPG. The locations, the people and the "pre-war stuff" where all inspired by the american culture of the 1950's. Necropolis and Junktown are the kind of things you expect to see in a Golden Age Comic Book about "Fallout Man". The Glow is like entering the ruins of a secret research facility as they were imagined in the 50's and the Military Base with its' illegal experiments are pure early cold war gold.
Fallout 2 on the other hand ended up flirting so heavily with pop-culture that it lost itself in it. New Reno was a curious location, but ultimately not very Fallout. NCR and Vault City suffers the same problems and the Den is more of a representation of a 90's drug ghetto with slavers than a 50's-inspired location. I feel that something was lost in translation.
Fallout 3 returns to the roots and creates the perfect enviroment. Whereever I go, I am reminded that this world got nuked in the 50's and is quite inspired by the 1950's in general. Not all locations are like this, but enough that I constantly feel immersed.
When it comes to gameplay mechanics on the other hand, Fallout 3 is more like oblivion than previous Fallout games. It doesn't bother me as much, because I play computer games for their story or their immersive qualities, not their gameplay mechanics.
Is it true to the Fallout spirit? Yes and no. The surroundings, the feeling of the wasteland and the sights are all very much fallout (more so than Fallout 2 I dare say). Bear with me here, while I explain this. Fallout was a pulp-50's Post Apocalyptic RPG. The locations, the people and the "pre-war stuff" where all inspired by the american culture of the 1950's. Necropolis and Junktown are the kind of things you expect to see in a Golden Age Comic Book about "Fallout Man". The Glow is like entering the ruins of a secret research facility as they were imagined in the 50's and the Military Base with its' illegal experiments are pure early cold war gold.
Fallout 2 on the other hand ended up flirting so heavily with pop-culture that it lost itself in it. New Reno was a curious location, but ultimately not very Fallout. NCR and Vault City suffers the same problems and the Den is more of a representation of a 90's drug ghetto with slavers than a 50's-inspired location. I feel that something was lost in translation.
Fallout 3 returns to the roots and creates the perfect enviroment. Whereever I go, I am reminded that this world got nuked in the 50's and is quite inspired by the 1950's in general. Not all locations are like this, but enough that I constantly feel immersed.
When it comes to gameplay mechanics on the other hand, Fallout 3 is more like oblivion than previous Fallout games. It doesn't bother me as much, because I play computer games for their story or their immersive qualities, not their gameplay mechanics.