HA good that ass, all the gamer kids are growing up, and can do stuff like vote, so all those politicians and [censored] that are anti games can now publicly be told to FOOK OFF

You consider that everything should be horror by the time... why not could be some order? And if people shoot open junkies? If on a fledging society i knew drugs could do a lot of problems, and being the people in charge of power, i wouldnt mind shooting junkies just to show what is the deal.

You can give a game or movie a great bit of realism of an wasteland without needing to use resources that will be controversal. I remember Mad max to very harsh but not this "explicit perversion".

This is why i diverse: why an alternate post apocalyptic future need to be all decay, perversion, lost and despair? Medieval age after rome was brutal, but there were obviously social control. Even with all despair, there was hope, and i do really think that isnt common sense that life is worthless on FO world.

One thing is have a game that is cleary devoted to depravation and perversion, as it seen to be gta or fo2. Other thing is to have such things on a game, but not have this as the main focus.

Being perverse/sadic/druged or not, FO3 show it own vision of the future. Just because its not a perversion fest it not mean its less valid than FO2.

this why you in contrast to new reno you had vault city and NCR, and its was your choice to which you want to be aligned too.
as for FO3 its not an alternative version of the future its the easy version for censorship purpose.

I'm not saying that it only has to have to be death and despair, I'm just pointing out it was more apparent in the first two. I agree there should also be alternatives that represent order.

not to be morbid necessarily but do you really think there will be any kind of order if something like in fallout were to happen half of the world sits around all
day relying on tvs and computers for everything and not only that but prisons would be opened and all the lunatics would run free much like fallout 2
but probably more disturbing don't kid yourself they dulled it down for the censors way more than needed to even conkers bad fur day puts it to shame in that regard i mean look at any survival horror all of them have more mature situations and were not disbarred don't get me wrong fallout was great but it could have been much more realistic

BWA HA HA HA, TRUE!!!!! :rofl:

Well first, just gonna point this out. The East Coast is a thriving [censored]hole, whereas the West Coast is fairly civilized and not populated by worthless people. That's really been my key complaint with Fo3. How the hell can you explain how worse off the East Coast is?

I think POstem is in denile about FO3. Seriously, FO3 was toned down significantly. All of the generic use of drugs are portrayed as chems, to loosen the level of maturity. I mean really, the prostitutions, junkies, and "pimps" from FO3 should belong in Vault City because that is the kind of toned down stuff that will go there.

All mentions of those people, like Paulie and whatnot are significantly toned down because you cannot go further into the conversation than, "here have some jet," or "I don't have any jet." I mean in FO1 and FO2 these people have no brains and sometimes attack unprovocted, they also crowd around the doors and not let you in places that is where you have to blast the hell out of them.

I'll expand on this a bit. Actually it seems to me that the problem of maturity in FO3 is a bit deeper than the relative lack of drugs, prostitution etc.
I actually feel it more in my character who is generally... kind of 'cute'.
His dialog choices feel to me like those of a 14 year old. I mean, things like "I'm looking for my dad have you seen him?"... it's so cute isn't it?
And then I got something like "Megaton is under my protection"... that's just naive!
why? because he was just out of the fricking vault for only a day or so, and he just decides to be the protector of a town that has seen rougher times that he's even dreamed. So sweet of him... like a 5year old protecting his mommy.
And then I keep feeling that everyone in the wasteland is constantly patronizing me...

I carry a dozen guns on me I kill ghouls for fun, and I just can't be 'a tough man': tougher choice seems to be the impolite teen!
Ok I know he's 19 and he has leaved in an overprotective environment all his life and all, but the wasteland is supposed to be an extremely tough place and I would expect him to grow up a lot faster than he seems, just so he can have a chance to survive.

Seriously I think this needs to be addressed first in future games - first give a character who is a man (or a woman ok) and not a teen and then we can allow him to have six, drugs and whatever else we want.
Or we'll end up instead of getting a more 'mature' game getting a more 'immature' one - in the most negative sense of the word.
i.e. I don't want to play a teen doing drugs - I want to play a tough man doing whatever the hell he likes. (like... the good old vault dweller )

Sorry to go back to this, but why? I had a quick read through the forum rules and didn't see anything that prohibited discussing the killing of (in-game) children. Am I missing something?

In Australia Fallout 3 is rated MA15+ but the thing is, I've seen that about 50% of the people are about 13-14. That's because most kids don't care anymore, they want to break the rules and that's what they've done, with an expensive price label. I should understand, when I was about the age of 8 I was playing harsh killing games, I'm completely fine now, I'm not a killer am I?

(If you want to know my age, just check my profile, work it out from my Birthday,)

Appealing to a mature audience is not what Bethesda does best.
They aren't deft enough to handle such topics.
Their milieu is doing the opposite, watering games down and diluting them so they can make more money.

Yeah, to be honest I've only started playing mature games the past 2 years or so, before then I was playing things like Spyro or Jak & Daxter...tame stuff. My thinking patterns haven't changed since playing Fallout or COD4, I'm not looking to kill people and I don't swear excessively (some might argue this, lol).

http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=914506


While that is specific to mods about killing children, FO3 does not include child killing and thus we don't allow discussion of it here at all. This is a 13+ forum and it falls under "inappropriate for this forum" rule.

This is the "Fallout series discussion" board, not the "Fallout 3 discussion" board. Fallout 1 and 2 do include child killing and this is where they are discussed.

And I don't really see how discussing nuking a town with children in it is OK, but discussing killing children with a gun is not.

Nuking the town and mentioning the children isn't discussed. Even if it were, the topic would be closed. Nuking the town, period. Can be discussed. That other website's rules doesn't make much sense either. Apparently it's ok to bash people who like Fallout 3, and not accept their opinion.

Anyway, I don't see how "Additionally, we do not allow thread topics that relate to creating child killing mods." applies to discussions about child killing in general, particularly in the general "Fallout series board" which is, among others, dedicated to FO1 and FO2.



Huh? What do any other website's rules have anything to do with this discussion?

Just a little bit of rage left over from an event that happened a while ago. Sorry about that.

You could also sleep with people and non-people all over the wasteland to get the Gigolo and sixpert traits in Fallout 2. Although women had significantly more opportunities to exercise loose morals than men.

You should be able to have sixitime with everyone in the wasteland if you had high enough charisma, speech and a perk/trait that makes you a six craving wastelander.
And how about ability to kill teens, but not little kids (who are invincible and run away [don't fight with YOU]), but you would still be getting the childkiller thingy

I'm a bit fuzzy on your rules here, then. That link says, as you pointed out, that you do not allow discussion of child-killing mods, but I'm not talking about child-killing mods, I'm talking about the killing of in-game children. It's either prohibited by your rules or not, and your rules don't seem to prohibit discussing child-killing, as long as it's not a child-killing mod for FO3.



Ah, I see. If we don't see them die, and we don't talk about them dying, then they might as well have not died? Funny, how moral hypocrisy works.

I've mostly skimmed most of this post - forgive if this has been brought up before and I missed it (and if it has, then I agree with those who already put it forward, obviously...)

A lot of what gets brought up when people want "mature" content is really just a 13-yr-old boy's definition of the word - or at least is usually implemented in that manner when it gets into the game. Boobs, swearing, and gratuitous violence for no reason, basically. By those terms, most of Fallout 1 and 2 were "mature," but only in those sort of surface aspects. I mean, adding in more six, junkies and such - doesn't really make it all that more mature, I think.

What I'd like to see in a more "grown-up" vision of future Fallout games certainly includes a lot of that stuff, of course. But I'd be primarily concerned with dealing with advlt situations and moral dilemmas. (Actually, I think the Pitt DLC was kind of a good example of that - no matter what you did, you didn't come out of that mission feeling very good about yourself, I think. Actually, I sided with might actually be considered the "evil" side, just because I didn't agree with the methods the "good" side was employing. And this was with my "good" character.)

Most games that have this popular option to be a good guy or a bad guy only deal with black and white definitions of that. You're either the most evil guy who ever walked the earth; or you're a goody two-shoes. Being "neutral" usually means just being very schizophrenic and drifting back and forth between acts of ultimate evil and pure goodness.

The really evil people in the world (and in a well-written story) don't think they're bad guys. The worst of the worst actually feel that they're acting for the better good, or at least have compelling arguments for their actions. (Actually, to give credit where it's due - I honestly thought "President Eden" gave some very good rationalizations for his master plan.) The eviller a villain is, the more convinced he is that what he's doing is actually the right thing. The most compelling of all actually leave you wondering if maybe he wasn't in the right after all. Sure, there's just plain mean people in the world - but that's often a pretty two-dimensional character; and I don't think it makes for a very compelling protagonist.

Conversely, I'd imagine it's pretty hard to be "good" in a world like Fallout. I mean, look at the Mad Max movies - Max is pretty much the epitome of a reluctant anti-hero; and he's just about the most moral person you find in all of the movies. I don't think good deeds should be the default action when faced with a dilemma, with "evil" being the alternate path. I'd rather see it being a challenge to be the good guy all the time. Just what is your character's own moral compass, and what is he willing to sacrifice to stay true to his ideals? All those beggars you come across in Fallout 3, for example - giving them some purified water nets you some good karma. But it's really not costing you much of anything. Pure water is somewhat rare, but it's not all that hard to come by, and you're hardly handicapping yourself even if you give up your last bottle to him.

If a moral decision like "should I help this guy out," doesn't make you pause and think for a moment, then I can't really qualify it as a "mature" addition. It shouldn't be about whether you're good or evil, but in how good or evil you are. Take the fate of Megaton, for example. As it stands, it just comes down to "is my character going to be good or evil." Even if the "evil" option means killing tons of people - it's really not very mature. Because it's a pretty simple decision when you get down to it - most people know ahead of time if their character is going to be the good guy or the bad guy, so you just pick which one you want - I'd guess most people knew at the start of the game which they were going to do.

But if there was actually a compelling reason why Megaton should be blown up, then that would have at least helped to make it more mature. A couple hundred caps isn't going to buy you much - what if the reward was a couple thousand, even? Or if detonating the bomb might have actually done some good (don't know what that could possibly be, but it'd be possible.) If the offer was compelling enough, it might have been hard for even a "good" character to turn down.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

You make some really good points, Nu_clear_day, especially with regards to the whole Megaton issue- it really was a very simplistic instance of choosing between black and white from the outset (not that FO3 is the only game guilty of this, but it's a jarring departure from FO's 1 and 2).

I know it goes somewhere along with this...You can kill millions of people smoke pot ect.In games but once theres a nipble or partial nudity everything Falls apart.Ie. Mass effect there wasn't even anything to terribly wrong with it


Still Kids still play it...Like me Though I'm not a kid more of a teen but...NVM getting carried away