Huh. Don't think anyone's agreed with me before. It always seems like I get into these things long after the heat has died down.

Well, I just feel that it lacks some freedom. I mean, there are encounters and load of quests, but there isn't really much to explore. There are only a handful of small cities which each have some 5-8 small quests like "Smuggle Jet to Dr. Troy" and so.
Just my opinion, I know I didn't present any serious evidence on the matter.

Hmm, yeah, that makes sense. But with his post, I cannot see how someone would say Fallout 3 had the better storyline when the Lead Designer screws with the story for the sake of features.

Especially since it just recycles everything from the previous Fallouts. Sloppy seconds if you will

FO3 might have better graphics technology-wise, but FO1 and 2 had better art direction.

I have no intention on getting onto this verses debate... Is the Mona lisa more or less impressive than Da Vinci's Glider plans? Don't Care, they're both great, in their own way.

I encourage everyone to except them as they are... Just different from each other.

edit: A bit old, but..... http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20081112

Can somebody list at least some general attributes why F3 is so great? Let's hear some.

All right so you want to compare apples and oranges eh? Fallout 2 blows away Fallout 3, how about that?

It is actually a role playing game not a FPS with minor role playing aspects. How much problem solving or interaction does Fallout 3 have? How can you develop your character as a person and what they do or do not do to effect their reputation? Fallout 3 has more killing to it than role playing, just like an FPS.

Fallout 3 is prettier for the graphics nerds by far. It trumps over the simplified 2D of Fallout 2. But playing a game is not all about the graphics, its about the story and your character's development. Fallout 3's main story is dull. The exploring in the game world and taking on the minor quests in the game are far more interesting. Fallout 2's main story and minor quests were great.

The end. Fallout 3 simply svcked in regards of the end. It expects you to sacrifice yourself. Why? If you have Fawkes with you, he could easily do that part at the end, he's immune to radiation. The game failed in logic on that part.

The leveling in Fallout 3 svcks. I am a quarter of the way done in the game and I'm already level 16. By half way I'll be maxed out at level 20. The level 20 cap was poor design, they could have easily extended it to level 40.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Fallout 3. Its my new "crack" addiction right now. Its a good post Apocalyptic game, Fallout in name only. Or FINO.

So what's wrong with that?

And, if you don't think there's a lot to find, you haven't been looking. I suppose if you are a quest junkie, and/or need to be told where to go/what to do, then you might not like this game.

lol, alot?

lol once again. "quest junkie" in an RPG? Why I never! Why would anyone want compelling quests? I mean seriously.....*rolls eyes* Exploring is only fun if there is interesting unique things/scenarios to see or do along the way or something particularly compelling/important at the destination. Repetitive enemies/locations/objects/environments aren't what I consider compelling/interesting. Ah well. I'm old and confused.

I'd say quite alot, or I wouldn't have raised it as an issue

There's the lack of substance for one, there's nothing wrong with quantity so long as it's not disposable, it's not a compromise for quality, as is the basis of most of my points of view.

I've been very thorough in my exploration of FO3's wasteland, I made a point of discovering every location without the assistance of the Explorer perk, longevity exists in the challenge afterall. The wasteland just feels unfinished, too many locations are just loot spots, as I said already. What is the point of launching an ICBM when it does nothing, what is the point of constant repetative morse code broadcasts when all they point to is, hm, more loot. And it's not even interesting loot, just the same old meds and chems, ammo etc. There are unique weapons in some places, but most aren't even that unique beyond a higher damage threshold, it's just another placebo feeling of achievement, that becomes more meaningless the more it happens. There may not have been as many locations in the previous games, but at least every single one of them was associated with a quest, plus all the extra loot that comes with it, but that can be ignored because there's a bigger picture which always takes precedence. I've never wanted to be told where to go or what to do, that is pretty much everything I stand against in gaming, so that as a reason for me not liking FO3 doesn't come into it.

Where does this "rose-tinted glasses" thing keep coming from? These games still run just fine on modern computers without major modification or even DOSBox. A lot of people still own and play the original games. How can you be viewing something through the filter of nostalgia, something that you just played last week? How terribly inaccurate can my remembrance of these games be if I've played it yesterday?

I agree, the originals weren't perfect in the same way every game, ever, isn't perfect. Fallout 1 and 2 have their flaws and so does Fallout 3. Myself, I like all 3 games quite a bit (though as much of a Fallout fan as I am, I'm still more of an X-COM kind of guy...) But, what I liked about the original games are not what I liked about Fallout 3. Someone who fell in love with Fallout 1 and 2 is not automatically going to enjoy Fallout 3. Which is... a little unique for a "sequel" really.

For example, I find Prince of Persia to be one of the better games I've played. I enjoyed the freestyle acrobatics and how the environment itself was a puzzle to be solved. If they made another sequel to that game, but this time it played more like Mirror's Edge, I'd be a little bit upset. All the new fans would be saying "but it's a better game - it's prettier and it doesn't have that lame 3rd person view, and it's so much more immersive." It could even be a "better" game in many ways, but I would no longer be playing it for the same reasons I enjoyed the other games.

If I'm sitting in front of my computer thinking of what game I feel like playing, and I feel the need for something like Fallout 2 (but don't want to play that because I just beat it again yesterday,) then Fallout 3 is not going to satisfy that craving. That doesn't mean it's a bad game, just that the things I enjoyed about the original games are largely absent in Fallout 3.

For me, it's not about complicated rule systems (SPECIAL being more like GURPS-lite than anything,) but a certain amount of refinement and elegance in the system used. White Wolf, for all their "let's not let the rules get in the way 'roleplaying'," actually has a very elegant ruleset. Different characters with different stats will play differently. One would be hard-pressed to further refine their system without drastically altering the way that game is played.

Fallout 3, to my mind, doesn't have that. You'd arguably get pretty much the same play experience if you completely removed the Attributes altogether and just picked various perks at each level up. This was not the case in Fallout 2. A weak character with low STR could not use many weapons in the game and had to find other means to an end. A character that focused primarily on STR had a wider variety of arsenal, but had to rely on that strength over alternate paths through an objective. In Fallout 3, it hardly matters what I pick as my stats, all the options are still open to me.

Some would say "but that's what's so great about Fallout 3, you can choose for yourself the character you want to play, and all the options are open to you." But then my argument is: why even have Attributes in the game at all, if they don't serve to differentiate your character? I would also say that the same choices are open to you in Fallout 2, you just have to pick the right character to play. If you play someone with gimped STR and END, then the other options that are open to you should compensate for not being a killing machine (and if you wanted to be a walking dealer of death, why did you pick such low STR scores?) Or a character who focuses more on those Attributes at the expense of other ones shouldn't mind not being able to sweet-talk everyone they want (because if that's what you wanted to do, then why didn't you focus on the Attributes relevant to that playstyle?)

My view of a good ruleset is that all Attributes should be equally useful. I should gain as much of an advantage from a 10 STR as a 10 CHA or 10 PER. A character with 40 Stat points should be equally viable regardless of where those points are spent. There should be no "right" or "better" way to spend your Attribute points. I don't frankly see that in Fallout 3. At least not my own personal standards. Again, it's not about complication, it's about refinement - which is something I see in Fallout 3 as lacking to an extent. Fallout 1 was made from the ruleset up, to take advantage of the system they'd designed. Fallout 3 made a game and then tried to apply the ruleset to that game.

That I agree with. There are many things in common. For some of us, it's the differences that in some ways outweigh those similarities. (And I'm not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game, I rather enjoy it. Just, like I said, not for many of the reasons I enjoyed the first games.)

I don't know. I mean it's purely subjective, of course, but I prefer the art direction in Fallout 3. The old ones often came off as a little bit generic to me. I rather like what they did with this game as far as the art direction. To me, it actually feels more "Fallout" than the original games in some ways.

One thing I think FO3 has that SO1 and FO2 never did? Immersion. A first-person view of the game really does increase your sense that you are actually there. The litter, trash, and debris scattered all over the place also supports that.

And, you know? I've actually been to D.C. once or twice - and hte ones in FO3? They're so evocative of the actual look - especially the arched ceilings - that it can be spooky, at times. Here, look at http://blog.aia.org/mt-static/plugins/Ajaxify/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/images/favorite_architecture_images/106_washington_d.c._metro_lg.jpg, of a real metro station in D.C. http://photos.igougo.com/images/p72187-Washington-Washington_DC_Metro_Gallery_Place_Station.jpg is another view. The first time I went down into a metro station, Ilooked, and ....... stopped, slack-jawed and feeling "Holy sh!t, I've been here before!!"

And finally - while I could wish fewer doors were boarded up, and fewer buildings were mere "window-dressing" rather than being enterable ... nonetheless, the range fo places we can go into in FO3 is larger, IMO, than those in FO1 and FO2 combined.

...

That a good enough start, for you?


Those of us who enjoy exploration for the sake of exploration are motivated by nothing more than an intense desire to know "what's on the other side of that hill?"

That is to say: the act of exploration can be, and for some of us is, IT'S OWN REWARD.

I think you are exaggerating. A Fallout 3 character with low charisma will hardly ever make a successful speech check outside of spamming all skill points in Speech skill, which will make other skills weaker. A character with very low endurance will have difficulties with health the entire game.


Lots of fans of Jordan Mechner's POP games feel the same about Ubisoft's adaptation as the naysayers here. Any fans about classic game series that are dusted off by another company, usually do.


For the same reasons I find Morrowind so great.

I admit, I was exagerrating a bit to make the point. I'm not saying that Attributes don't play any role at all, but I do feel it's a pretty minimal role at best.

You're going to have trouble making Speech rolls with 1 CHA, but if you raise your skill to 100, you'll do pretty well in it. Which to me, serves to illustrate that your Skills are what really matter in Fallout 3, and not the Attributes.

Endurance is largely unchanged from Fallout 2 to Fallout 3. (There's really only so much you can ever do with END besides affecting HP, anyway.) That's one I don't have an issue with.

But look at PER. It plays only a minor roll at best. If I raise PER to 10, are those 10 points really going to be as useful as if I'd placed them in INT or STR? I think it doesn't, which isn't true of Fallout 1 and 2, where that was a very important Attribute (along with all of the other ones.) That is one Attribute I feel where they were grasping at a way to fit it into their game. Not having Perception in the game at all (which would make it the SECIAL system, I suppose) wouldn't really change how Fallout 3 plays. Taking that same Attribute out of Fallout 1 or 2 would have lead to very different gameplay considerations.

You being there was never the point, Fallout was all about your character, his/her story, his/her capabilities, his/her flaws. In your eyes maybe a better aspect of immersion, but it contradicts one of Fallout's main and greatest aspects.

It must of been great to compare the in-game D.C to the actual D.C, that is definitely a bonus to your experience, but very few FO3 gamers outside of D.C are unable to appreciate this aspect, so that, as amazing as it sounds, is still very subjective. It would be no surprise if Bethesda did their research based on images similar to the ones you've submitted, so it's no surprise that the accuracy exsists, I'm not trying to take away from Beths achievement with that statement, but it makes alot of sense things went that way.

As for the range of places, I still stand by my original statement, yes there is no doubt that FO3 has more locations than the originals combined, but the scope of most of those locations are minimal. quality over/before quantity, always, in my opinion at least.


? la exploration sim. This to me is a criticism more than a compliment, when you consider Fallout at least.


What!? Did you just say that? It's been turned upside down on it's face. Endurance in FO2 provided a minimal but effective boost in starting HP, and altered HP gain/level. In Fallout 3, END is completely retroactive: HP = 100 + (EN x 20) + ((level-1) x 10). You can start the game with 300HP depending on how you've tailored your END, and no matter what your END stat, you'll always gain +10 HP/level. This is a huge difference in function.

While Fallout 2 has the better gameplay mechanics and all around "Stuff to Do", I think Fallout 3 excelled at actually pulling a person *into* Fallout.

In the original games, the ruins were...well...pixelated. We didn't interact with the scenery much outside settlements. In Fallout 3, on the other hand, the first thing when I exited the Vault was seeing the burnt out husk of Springvale and the dilapidated freeway, thinking to myself "I can actually explore..."

The removal of the overworld map, and objects of interest being as much stuff viewed on the horizon as it was pointed to on your compass really helped Fallout 3, in that regard. I'll probably be regarded as a heathen and heretic, but while I still wildly enjoy Fallouts 1 and 2, I also enjoy Fallout 3 and feel it does a worthy job of carrying on the legacy of the game world. But I freely admit, Fallout 3 came across as a shooter more then a RPG. At the same time, the focus on combat rather then role play isn't new to the series. Fallout: Tactics and (shudder) Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel were both combat-driven experiences.

The thing I wish Bethesda wouldn't have done though, was populating every single ruin and place of interest with generic baddies, despite the logic such enemies would have in being there. It's a carry over from the Elder Scrolls, where every cave and tomb had to have guardians. But in the wasteland I think a lot of places would have functioned better deserted (Vault 92 in particular, rig the place with traps not enemies).

In terms of story though, I have to side with Fallout 3 more then Fallout 2 (Fallout 1's still king of the Story Hill though). While Fallout 3's story was generic and linear fare, it made a lot more sense then Fallout 2's "Our take on Fallout 1 with an evil version of the Brotherhood of Steel". It didn't help the Enclave were barely a presence prior to Narravo. One special encounter and the possibility of patrols out by Narravo is all the Enclave have in terms of presence in Fallout 2. At least in Fallout 3, when they show up the game world shifts. If not profoundly then at least you know they're not confined to one corner of the map.

Also there's the fact I consider Fallout 2 far too "settled". Most settlements I don't have issues with, but Broken Hills is far too much of a "Quaint Home Town" vibe and New Reno, San Fransisco, and NCR manage to completely throw you out of the concept of this being Post Apocalyptica.

So, if only for myself, I have to say that all the Fallouts have their issues (Some greater then others *points to Brotherhood of Steel*), and some folks will find more satisfaction out of one Fallout then someone will find with another. All I can say is, for myself, all three core games have felt like the Fallout I know and enjoy, and that's enough for me.

...

You fail at Role-Playing Games.

That is all.


Yes, I definitely hear you, there.


Honestly, the same is true of FO1 and FO2; for all that many quests offered alternative approches to "just shoot everything", unfortunately, if you weren't at least somewhat competent in combat ... you would not survive to see the end of the game. Random Encounters withhostile forces, if nothing else, would eventually be the end of you.

Agreed. Even if you chose to play "The Diplomat", you always had hired goons around you willing to do your killing while you ran around with the Stimpack stash trying to keep them all alive.

That's good and all (FPS or should I say first person 'perspective' at least is my preference in most of my games actually). But first person view and immersive atmosphere in and of itself does not automatically make a great game. Especially if much of the models/textures/voices/enemies are re-used over and over the "immersion" is far less fascinating. Especially if the focus is on exploration! If the game made up for this with absolutely gripping quests/NPCs/interactions/events/writing then it wouldn't be such a big deal. But to me it doesn't make up in those departments.

You asked for "at least some general attributes why F3 is so great?" ... not "what makes FO3 better than any other game possible". *shrug*

im about to get the interplay 3 game deal for 20 bucks.
having read how many feel that 1and2 are great games and how i love fallout3, its going to be very interesting to play them and make some judgments.

cant wait to play...

...

You fail at holding up a decent debate.

Less combat oriented characters are perfectly able to strap on a decent set of armour regardless of their status. Even if you decided to severely gimp your AGI, you still have at least 5 action points a turn to escape from random encounters. Outdoorsman made sure that any pacifist could survive whilst traveling the wastes. If you're going to be a non-combat character, you may aswell be smart about it. You can go through the entire main plot without lifting a finger in both the originals.

That is all. *cringe*


Subjective. Gets nowhere fast.

HA.

In an RPG, the player is supposed to identify with the main character - the whole idea is, that the player assumes the ROLE of that character within the story. This is true of all actual role-playing games. Even of OTHER games: if there's a story, then the author(s) of the story in question wants the player to identify with the main character, and feel immersed in the setting and the story.

Yet, you've adopted a position where immersion, where feeling "you are there", is supposedly contradictory to the experience of a Role-Playing Game. You've made a statement that indicates you think the player should NOT identify with the main character.

Ergo, I say again: you fail at role-playing games. Utterly, completely, and totally.


.... oh, really? In FO2, you can win the game, without having to fight Horrigan?

As for strapping on the good armor and such - that's still a degree of combat competence. You can't play the (for example) grimy business-suit-wearing snake-oil sailesman type. It's "power armor, or bust" - and even then, in another thread you insisted that even power armor, against a handful of supermutants with plasma rifles, was likely to land you in a grave. That was a discussion regarding VERY combat-competent characters. Johnny Talks-a-Lot isn't going to fare very well at ALL in that sort of situation.


Only a fool believes his experience to be universal - and only a great fool believes his experience to be more true or correct than others' experiences.

Heh! Respectfully disagree. I never really felt immersed in Fallout 3. Too many inconsistencies in the game, paired with poor writing. First person did very little to draw me in.

To me, immersion requires the world to be believable, it requires believable characters. You have to CARE about the characters.

And frankly, I didn't care about anyone in Fallout 3. Not even dear old Dad.

So while first person helps a bit, the writing has a much, MUCH bigger impact on 'immersion'. There's also making the environment more immersive. That was something I felt STALKER accomplished well, despite it's bugs and cut content.

Fallout 1 and 2, but especially Fallout 1, captured that depressing end of the world feel, where everyone is indulging in vices, be it gambling, hokers, drugs, slavery or plain old violence for the sake of violence. Where almost everyone was seeking to take advantage of the next guy.

It made a destroyed world feel that much more living.





There's a nice taste of irony in that, since he was making an excellent point regarding roleplaying games. Roleplaying games SHOULD be about your character, what their strengths and weaknesses are...the fact that people are starting to not think that anymore is very sad



Yes, but you don't need to be in the first person perspective to accomplish that. The writing is far far more important to that aspect, not what viewpoint you use. Being in a non first person perspective never killed immersion, nor does less detail in the gameworld. As long as it's handled logically, the detail can vary a great deal.

BUT. Bad writing will kill it everytime. Now obviously people have different standards when it comes to that. It would appear the writing was sufficient for you. It wasn't for me, first or third person viewpoint aside. So I think it's pretty unfair to criticize FalloutChris as "failing at roleplaying games", when you're dealing with an entirely subjective matter.

Ergh.

You do identify with the main character, you don't have to become the main character to get immersed in the game, though that may help some people, it's not a requisite. Hell any and all rpgs are derived from p&p which is the very foundation of roleplay. It was never about being the character. In your sense of RP any game that offers a first person perspective is a roleplay game. And various other points bolded and italicised for emphasis.


Yes, in FO2, you can win the game, without having to fight Horrigan. Quote me on that as many times as you like.

It's not though. I can't shoot a gun but I know how to put something over my head and know it's alot less penetrable than my jumpsuit or my flesh. You can play whatever type you like, you don't need a grimy suit to do that, I don't think many people in a post-nuclear wasteland care much about their appearance. Johnny Talks-a-Lot isn't going to try and make nice with muties, he's going to run like hell. The combat discussion we had was based on engagement, it wasn't selective.

That sounds very profound, but it doesn't really mean anything. Unless it's yet another slight at me, in which case feel free.