Dude, I actually said I quite liked them. And yes, they are silly. Backstory or not, imagined or scripted or not, they are silly.

Okay. Also, I quite liked the FO2 Special Encounters (except maybe the Bridgekeeper, that one was just too much for me).

Gotta hurry here, because we're at Post Limit...

The point is that wandering around wearing Bridgekeeper's Robes and carrying the Solar Scorcher that you got from time-travelling is a TOTALLY different thing from - some folks living in the very barren, desolate, bleak and isolated world have lost their grip on reality.

Look back through the posts in this thread. I mentioned that there was some history behind the "Special Encounters Don't Count" rule. Well a lot of this thread has been basically applying that ridiculous type of thing - what I believe I called the "When Comparing FO1/FO2 With FO3 - You Can Only Consider The WORST Of FO3 Rule". So, look back through this thread and ask yourself if you can see that rule in action.

Well for me I could have lived without all the whackiness that Bethesda said would not be part of the game. Yes we had to live with this crap in FO2 and if you played the game and tried to believe for a moment that it was real you had to become very good at ignoring a lot of [censored].


Hey, hey I see your a fabulous Randy fan. A lot of people have no idea who he was and what he did, but I remember. Kind of ironic too considering his proffession. I liked and respected him.

Crni must have really victimized you for you to still harp on about that "Special Encounters don't count as canon", from the thread you two had a ways back, heh. People do the same with FO2 and FO1 though, although I guess you're ok with that. I'm not quite sure what you mean by breaking the gameworld, if you mean the reality of it - which is really the "immersive" bit I think, then there's plenty of that in FO3 (lack of any sustainable settlements, odd placement of "loot", the SMs - for me) and that's done without the special encounters. I find this all funny, as FO2's designers probably upped the number of special encounters (willingly or not) to make more "cool stuff" for the players to enjoy. Heh.

I don't think that's a ridiculous argument because those special encounters were a part of the game in spirit, not in raw content. I think in order to discuss this issue you have to keep that in mind.



I could go either way. I like Fallout 1 for it's more serioius tone and I like Fallout 2 for it's hilarity (c'mon, the New Reno comedian? hee-larious! ).



:foodndrink:

(Amazing Randi, you mean. The man was indeed a genius.)

Wow, you too? I understand that the Special Encounters aren't meant to be Canon or part of the "official" storyline. That they sit outside the narrative. I get that (although the fact that you can carry items out of them into the rest of the game seems like a bad decision considering this). BUT please look at what I said:

I'm not trying to say that FO2 svcked because it had Special Encounters - I have stated repeatedly that I think that FO2 is a fantastic game. I'm trying to say that all the "I'm not a hater" haters are haters. That FO3 has been held up to a ridiculously high double standard. That even failing the impossible standard set for it isn't enough and some people have to make stuff up or blatantly ignore stuff in order to trash FO3 more.

Yes, I was victimized pretty badly. I was expecting rational argument.

Okay, I give you that loot placement is non-sensical, but seriously - that is as bad a breach as TARDIS? Or Pinky and the Brain (also not a Special Encounter) or ghosts looking for their lockets?

And the lack of sustainable settlements - have you looked at the Wasteland? The FO3 settlements are totally consistent with their game world.

And SM's? I suppose FO1 and FO2 SM's are okay. I guess SM's only become unbelievable when their intelligence is low.

:lmao:


What now?




Do you think hiring better writers for the sake of dialog & story, fixing and better implementing the SPECIAL system, and fixing the Karma system is a ridiculously high double standard? That's all I really want. Fix those things, update the game engine a bit (animations are a bit outdated) and we'd have a game worthy of the series on our hands!

Really, for the first part - you should look at some of the other threads on these forums. Now on to Part 2.

I agree that FO3 could have been better. I've made several criticisms of it myself. But the ridiculously high double standard comes from folks who say stuff like "200 year old edible food? geez what a crappy game" usually followed by something along the lines of "FO1/FO2 has no problems at all - those games (or maybe just FO1) are perfect games".

Do you really not understand? Are you actually suggesting that nobody is expecting more of FO3 than they did of FO1 or FO2? Are you saying that you don't think anybody is making stuff up, and moving goalposts and changing criteria and all sorts of other unfair nonsense - in order to rate FO1/FO2 higher than FO3?

I guess I could see that but I haven't looked around too much here. I just came to read about the DLC and see if any cool mods came from the G.E.C.K. yet, and saw a couple conversations going on that I wanted to join!

Anyway, sure Fallouts 1 & 2 had problems but they also established exactly what I'd want out of the series (Fallout 1 more so, of course) and because of that, I would love to see Fallout 4 fix that which is broken in Fallout 3. Make sense? All that other stuff is nitpicking if you ask me.

I agree whole-heartedly. There's definitely stuff that could have been done better in FO3 (the slideshow ending is number one on my list), and I'm sure we'll see a lot of things get mentioned on threads like these - but I also think that sensible criticism is a lot better than "O NOES NOT ANUDDER SHOOTER!!".

If I made you feel unwelcome here, then please allow me to apologize. You have just as much right as I do to say whatever you please.

So you say they had problems but you want exactly that...problems and all?

Please don't twist my words in an effort to be cute or contrary.

That's almost a direct quote. I don't try to wist words.

*sigh*

Fallout 1 and 2 are not free from fault but what they did do right is what I expect from the series. If you did not get that from what I wrote, here it is.

I think what they did right is a matter of taste. I'm not as wrapped up in it to be that concerned about previous installments of the franchise. I'm pretty sure I would enjoy a FO2 clone less than I enjoy FO3, but that's me.

I'd like to think we could respect each others style of game play, but frankly, I see very little of that on these forums.

I don't see it as a matter of respecting anybody's style of game play. I simply want to see subsequent Fallouts living up to what was excellent about the originals. For me, that means a working SPECIAL system, a better Karma system and better writing. That is the very basis of what I want from Fallout 3 (too late) and Fallout 4 at the very least. I don't see how it has to do with styles of gaming necessarily. To me it's just about being a Fallout fan and wanting a game that follows the games' basic mechanics much closer than Fallout 3 did. And NO this isn't a perspective argument.

Not for you maybe, but it is for me. I'd like to see better dialogue and better Special implementation as well, but in a game that is more like FO3 than FO2. I liked FO1...FO2 not so much, but I enjoy playing fO3 more than I enjoyed either of the first FO's.

Ok, well...taking the original games out of the equation it sounds like we basically both want the same thing out of Fallout 4. How are we not on the same page yet?

It probably boils down to the same old TB/ISO vs RT/FP argument, and the special encounters thing.

Hmmm, but I don't want Fallout 3, 4, ? to be TB/ISO. Never have. It'd be nifty to have a toggle switch, but I don't have issues with those things at all.

That's interesting. Looks like we agree

He made his point pretty clear, although that's somehow morphed into the sole reason Fallout was well designed, apparently - and you endlessly bring it back up too. The FO3 settlements aren't really sustainable, I see a lot of places with people hanging around. Rivet City isn't too bad, but for the most part these places just look like refugee rally points or a quest hub in a MMOG, heh. The "there are no farms" point is one, and I didn't say they were inconsistent, as I'm not seeing settlements with something outlandish (sort of like San Fran was to an extent - Chinese, was ok, the kung fu stuff- not so much) and just how 200 years after a conflict, no one's seemed to really make any recovery. Also, it doesn't matter if the loot placement is more serious than TARDIS, mistakes in the first (if you REALLY think it's a mistake for a special "ain't it cool" encounter) isn't an excuse for the same in the present. My comment about the super mutants was the way they got rehashed as Generic Mook #2, given the origin of them from Mariposa and West Tek, and suddenly Vault-Tec is involved in it. Although I understand the real reasons for them being fitted in, so to speak.

For the most part, the breaks in immersion in the earlier games are intentional, the ones in Fallout 3 are more of mistakes, to me anyway.

Sure he made his point. I wasn't even disagreeing with his point. But he TOTALLY ignored mine - just like you're doing now.

The FO3 settlements are essentially refugee rally points - that's why there are so few people at them. And the no farms thing? I don't know if you noticed but stuff doesn't grow very well in the Wasteland. The land is scarred and poisoned with radiation. Maybe you didn't notice that. Maybe that's related to why you can't appreciate that the main storyline revolves around a giant Water Purifier.

I totally don't understand your point about SM's. Are you saying that virus-transformed sterile supersoldiers are realistic if you came up with the idea first, and that copies of that idea are somehow less believable?

But anyways, to your very valid point - if there was a mistake in FO1, that doesn't make it somehow "right" or "correct" for FO3 to repeat the mistake. A mistake is a mistake.

And now my point - ONE MORE TIME. Trying to get some of the FO3 sux crowd to acknowledge any mistakes in FO1 is like pulling teeth, while slagging FO3 for things which aren't even true seems to be no problem at all.

Yes, so with no farms..how exactly have those people survived for 200 years ? They had farms in the, while not as heavily so, radiated west - Modoc, Adytum, etc. Hell, they could have had some settlement with a hydroponic farm that could distribute the food. That was my point - I did notice the desolation and the plot involving water (hm seems familiar). My point with the SMs was mainly that, they needed them in the game. They did. And in order to get that and not beggar belief (Master's army made it across the country and rebuilt strength wouldn't fly) they'd have to do something like that. It's just off that Vault-Tec would be involved in this, they could have easily had some West Tek lab do it.