Disappointed anyone? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:58 am

Is that an example a good thing?

Example: Your character has high Intelligence and is speaking to Three Dog, who explains in just about every sentence that he is "Fighting the Good Fight!" A seemingly intelligent speechline shows up sometime during the conversation: "[Intelligence] So you fight the Good Fight?"

What's intelligent about that?

There are a lot of dialogue options during the game that use a stat or skill of your character, true, but most of them don't make any sense and are plain obvious, anyone could have said that.

Well, in your example- it depends on how you say it. It means your intelligent enough to have put together the circumstances about TheeDog and his Pirate Radio Station. That particular line is one of the ways to prompt Three Dog into offering the GNR Quest - although this is certainly do-able without using that line. Maybe it's not particularly well-executed, but I was just pointing out that these things are in the game. That your stats and skills affect what your character can say to NPC's.

Look, I have no problem with anybody saying that they think FO1/FO2 is immensely superior to FO3. That's an opinion - I don't happen to share it, but I appreciate that that opinion is totally valid. But this "FO3 is a generic shooter" nonsense, this "FO3 isn't an RPG" thing - well it' just plain wong.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:31 pm

Why is there is always threads discussing how disappointed Fallout 3 is?

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:04 am

Why is there is always threads discussing how disappointed Fallout 3 is?

Because it is?
That's one possible reason..

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:47 am

Who said that?
-duh

it doesn't mean that if you get to shoot something its an automatic shooter game. so don't play dumb with me, you know better than that

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:38 pm

Why is there is always threads discussing how disappointed Fallout 3 is?

Because some people are SOOOOOO disappointed in the game they apparently feel a need to:
1. Complain about it all the time (and usually in the same ways) and
2. Warn off others before they even consider playing the abomination that is the generic shooter of FO3. (there isn't a smiley eye-rolling enough for this spot)

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:46 am

Why is there is always threads discussing how disappointed Fallout 3 is?

People hold grudges.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:30 pm

Because some people are SOOOOOO disappointed in the game they apparently feel a need to:
1. Complain about it all the time (and usually in the same ways) and
2. Warn off others before they even consider playing the abomination that is the generic shooter of FO3. (there isn't a smiley eye-rolling enough for this spot)

People hold grudges.

Pretty much what I thought. I hope these kind of threads died out as the months past. Complains are just a waste of spaces.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:19 pm

it doesn't mean that if you get to shoot something its an automatic shooter game. so don't play dumb with me, you know better than that

Show me where I said FO1-2 is a shooter. Show me where I said FO3 is a shooter.

You are accusing me of an argument I have been arguing against. You must ahve me confused with someone else.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:30 pm

Apologies for the double-reply to the same comment - but I felt the following argument deserved it's own space, and not just an edit:

I don't buy the argument that because the stats/skills/perks mechanics of FO1/FO2 are more important than they are in FO3 make FO1/FO2 more Role-Playing than FO3.

Rewarding min/max playstyles is not inherently more "Role-Playing".

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:15 pm

Show me where I said FO1-2 is a shooter. Show me where I said FO3 is a shooter.

You are accusing me of an argument I have been arguing against. You must ahve me confused with someone else.

I did :facepalm:

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:09 pm

Really.

So it's just a simplistic, not poor, that dialogue has been dummied down to the point that Special has little to do with it?

I don't think any of us agrees with that.

Well the dialogue system as is, works okay. The quality of it, well that's poor, but then again dialogue was a battle they didn't want to fight, along with storyline too I guess.

Why is there is always threads discussing how disappointed Fallout 3 is?

I guess people are disappointed. If you don't voice your disappointment, things don't get better.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:25 pm

I did :facepalm:

link, please? I'm honestly confused s to why you attach that to me. I've been arguing that none of the FO's except TActics are combat games, and that combat is secondary in RPGs. If you think I said something else, let's clear it up.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:37 am

I've actually got both Fallouts 1 & 2 installed on my system at all times. Anyway, you're talking about Fallout 3...the game where your NPC's bum rush enemies for no reason? The game where combat is such a large part of the game you're actually forced into dungeon crawls to get from place to place whereas in the original games you could choose perks that let you bypass battle if you wanted? The game where S.P.E.C.I.A.L., skills, and perks really don't individualize your character in combat or non-combat? I mean, yeah...maybe the original games TBC isn't as good as (I can't really think of many RPG's from that era that are simply brilliant anyway) it could have been, but when comparing it to Fallout 3 I find it much more compelling, fun and generally interesting if for no other reason than your stats making a difference on how well you'll fare (this was my original point, btw). Fallout 3 just feels like somebody made you a gift. Let's say the gift is a model airplane. But they won't let you put the airplane together yourself, they have to put it together for you and point to it while looking at you saying "See? This piece goes right here! C'mon, put this piece right here there's no other place for that piece to go! You can do it!" and the only response you have is to put that piece there and at best you can say something like [Intelligence] So you're saying that piece goes right here?

That's fine. We all get it, but it becomes tiresome when folks attach problems to FO3 and make FO1-2 sound Godly. I could pick apart the above argument...compare and contrast, but this is getting tedious.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:39 am

I've actually got both Fallouts 1 & 2 installed on my system at all times. Anyway, you're talking about Fallout 3...the game where your NPC's bum rush enemies for no reason? The game where combat is such a large part of the game you're actually forced into dungeon crawls to get from place to place whereas in the original games you could choose perks that let you bypass battle if you wanted? The game where S.P.E.C.I.A.L., skills, and perks really don't individualize your character in combat or non-combat? I mean, yeah...maybe the original games TBC isn't as good as (I can't really think of many RPG's from that era that are simply brilliant anyway) it could have been, but when comparing it to Fallout 3 I find it much more compelling, fun and generally interesting if for no other reason than your stats making a difference on how well you'll fare (this was my original point, btw). Fallout 3 just feels like somebody made you a gift. Let's say the gift is a model airplane. But they won't let you put the airplane together yourself, they have to put it together for you and point to it while looking at you saying "See? This piece goes right here! C'mon, put this piece right here there's no other place for that piece to go! You can do it!" and the only response you have is to put that piece there and at best you can say something like [Intelligence] So you're saying that piece goes right here?

See, this is what I mean. Neither of my first two characters had to do Paradise Falls because they were Speech-focused - there are all sorts of encounters where certain perks or skills will get you out of combat.

The Metro system makes sense - it's a city with an underground tunnel system. Is it any surprise that the city took more bombs than the suburbs, or that the underground survived it better? Those tunnels aren't a "dungeon crawl" - and you can still bypass combat in them if you want with Sneak and/or Stealth Boys. But NOOOO. FO3 is a generic shooter - even if you want to RP or use non-combat solutions to problems the fact that the game lets you doesn't count.

[Intelligence] Saying that someone did something badly is different than saying they didn't do it at all.

edit: and this is ignoring that Paradise Falls can be done without a lot of combat even if you do have to rescue the kiddies

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:03 pm

link, please? I'm honestly confused s to why you attach that to me. I've been arguing that none of the FO's except TActics are combat games, and that combat is secondary in RPGs. If you think I said something else, let's clear it up.

You don't need a link, I can explain it right here its suppose to be from other forums I kept reading and apparently linked it on my mind that you made the statement.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:25 am

OK. Should I rephrase and say that the focus on incorporating stats in a meaningful way was not very strong and when they do actually incorporate stats in a meaningful way it all feels very forced, generic and uninteresting? Those speech checks are very simple and silly, imo and please...the subways are nothing more than copy/pasted dungeon crawls made for the target audience who can't get enough of 'sploding heads and feel that modern games like Mass Effect are tedious.

Sure - that way people will know that you are giving your impression of the game and not actually stating that the game doesn't have things, which it clearly does. If you want to say that FO3 is bad at being an RPG, well again I would disagree - but in that case I would just be stating a difference of opinion. Calling FO3 a "generic shooter" is silly.

Regarding the subways - again, the "imo" helps a lot. I don't buy the argument that they are intended for 'sploding heads since most of my head 'sploding occurs in the irradiated open air of the Wasteland or inside buildings. In fact, those subway tunnels have only a tiny fraction of the 'splodable heads in the game. I've heard that they are there for technical reasons - to break-up Downtown DC enough so that slower PC's can process stuff smoothly or whatnot. For me, they also make sense with the game world - I mean, i would expect to find semi-intact subway tunnels considering the state of the surface. And they add a new environment to the game, with its own atmosphere and feel. But that's my experience playing FO3, and I'm not surprised that yours was different.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:37 pm

Regarding the subways - again, the "imo" helps a lot. I don't buy the argument that they are intended for 'sploding heads since most of my head 'sploding occurs in the irradiated open air of the Wasteland or inside buildings. In fact, those subway tunnels have only a tiny fraction of the 'splodable heads in the game. I've heard that they are there for technical reasons - to break-up Downtown DC enough so that slower PC's can process stuff smoothly or whatnot. For me, they also make sense with the game world - I mean, i would expect to find semi-intact subway tunnels considering the state of the surface. And they add a new environment to the game, with its own atmosphere and feel. But that's my experience playing FO3, and I'm not surprised that yours was different.

I thought the subway systems were interesting to a point but I do see the other side of the argument where they feel a bit copied and pasted. Either way, I can deal with them but it would be pretty cool if there were more options throughout the game to get through areas easily because or if you built a non-combat character. Ironically, on that subject I certainly agree that the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system seems arbitrarily placed and doesn't actually function in the interesting ways the first two games offered and the skills just seem too easy to max out. I really, really like the idea of specialized characters as opposed to the "well-rounded" and feel I was robbed of that option. The first two games definintely had that implementation down.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:15 pm

Oh. I was just assuming it was already perceived as just my opinion. Also, the point I was driving at was that it didn't focus on incorporating those elements or implement them in interesting or beneficial ways. Also, I don't think I ever said FO3 was a generic shooter, did I?

You probably didn't. Someone else who I'm not naming (but I might be giving Pistolero some evil glances) did. And no one called him on it.

I guess my issue is that there are people who are reading these forums and getting a bad idea of what type of game FO3 is. I mean sure, there is a lot of action in it, and it's really gory, and there is a lot of combat - a small fraction of which is unavoidable and a large fraction of which is hard to avoid. But there's no doubt that it's an RPG.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:11 am

You probably didn't. Someone else who I'm not naming (but I might be giving Pistolero some evil glances) did. And no one called him on it.

I guess my issue is that there are people who are reading these forums and getting a bad idea of what type of game FO3 is. I mean sure, there is a lot of action in it, and it's really gory, and there is a lot of combat - a small fraction of which is unavoidable and a large fraction of which is hard to avoid. But there's no doubt that it's an RPG.

Oh I wouldn't worry. A good chunk of the people on this forum have a bad idea of what FO3 is, lots of shooty-shooty. And anyway, I doubt postings on a forum are going to drive people away from a game heralded as the ultimate game ever by various media.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:39 pm

Actually it is so dissimilar it is not even funny. All NPC interaction in Fallout depended on your stats, your previous actions and your karma. Not so in F3.

Example - I blow up Megaton and no one reacts differently to me. Counter example - The banker in the Hub in F1 would not deal with you if you have positive karma above certain level. If you insist on talking to him and you have positive karma , he and his goons will attack you.

Example - low intelligence mele oriented character in F3 has the same dialog options as a high intelligence science boy, as well as a high charisma/speech diplomat. Wonder why??? Counter example in F1 similarly build low intelligence mele character has almost no dialog options and he cans solve problems only through combat.

Dude, I lied to so many people about not blowing up Megaton it's not funny. The last thing I said to my father was a lie to him about not blowing up Megaton. They react the same because nobody knows it was you, they say "oh wow, did you hear that Megaton blew up? I was just on my way there..." to which I lie and say I had no idea...

And so what...the dialog options may be very similar no matter what kind of character you have...but you still have to make choices. Maybe you shouldn't have the option of choosing certain things to say to certain people....but who cares? You still have a choice to make. And things play out differently with the different choices you make.

And besides, there are still differences (depending on your character) which you are in obvious denial of.

Another besides, I'm actually speaking more of the visual representation of NPC dialog, not so much the dialog itself. But it all works about how I expected it to, based on previous Fallout games.

Anyone else?

Oh, and BLAM:

From this perspective, I enjoyed Fallout 3. But then, I play games to enjoy them, and don't go into depressive overload that the game didn't include features in some other game from some other company that I thought were cool, or came from a game of the same name produced some indeterminate time ago.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:52 pm

Is this...a fact? You're certainly presenting it like it is.

Well frankly ... the TB combat in Fallout 1 and 2 was not what I would describe as the pinnacle of tourn based gameplay. But it did its job. I have to agree with Orcbait. Combat was not "a battle the original Fallout devs wanted to take" compared to Fallout 3 where "Dialogue was a battle they did not wanted to take".

...
At least in FO3 they place themselves well, fire and maneuver, lay down suppressive fire.
...

They do? Or is is it not just a randoom impression from enemies that "spawn" in your back or flank. Most of the time people either storm at you witihout a sense for cover or just retreat. Combat is not that much more advanced compared to Oblivions AI (how could it be even since its almost the same AI as used in Oblivion).

I think talking about the "AI" in Fallout 3 will really not result in a outcome that is in favour for Fallout 3 ... not when its based on Oblivion.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:46 pm

Raiders flank. I've watched it. There's at least two Raider encounters that I know of where, yes they magically spawn very close to your location - that is not flanking. But I've watched them split up and send one of their guys in a different direction to try and catch you in a cross-fire. Talon Company does this too. Makes it real difficult to nail them all with one missile or grenade, or even keep track of what weapons they're using.

Giant Radscorpions flank. Next time you see a pair, jump up on a rock, wait for them to move out of range and then walk generally in the direction they went. You will get nailed from different sides, roughly at the same time.

When you get surprise attacked by Yao Gaoi and Deathclaws, it's not because they "spawned" on top of you. You got yourself maneuvered by an opponent that spotted you before you spotted them.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:52 pm

Maybe they would simply go back to F2?

BBBBWWWWWAAAAHHHHAAAAHHHHAAAAHHHHAAAA!!!

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:46 am

Best post in this whole thread...

Pretty much what I thought. I hope these kind of threads died out as the months past. Complains are just a waste of spaces.

» Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:21 am

Best post in this whole thread...

Hmm. Isn't complaining about those who complain an even bigger waste of space? Also, isn't it against forum rules? :nono: