We know nothing at all about nv nothing. Not one single thing. We have no idea about any town or any group, because 67 things could have happened.

Yes man = bad writing, he controls you. pop up to tell you what NCR is thinking = bad writing . Those two abortions alone took me right out of the game. Made it feel like a used condem.

87% of the game was good writing, but the endings were terrible. They were not well thought out. So for closing writing I give fo nv a negative 3. The rest of the nv writing was very good.

A [censored] pop up and yes man alone were worth a negative 5.

They couldn t call me to Crocker s office and tell me this? They throw in a pop up? Im telling you they got tired and had their youngsters finish this game. When ever I feel taken out of the game it is because of bad writing. The endings are full of this. Bad

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing, but I had an NCR ranger come and talk to me to tell me about that.

Basically.
But for good reason too.
I liked the old games brutality with action and consequence, I also loved the brutal combat, I loved seeing lots of different towns and cities and what the people had turned into and I liked to specialize my characters.
Now we get minimized towns, little action and consequence (more handholding) and horrible RP balance.

It's not that "oh but the old stuff rules and the new stuff svcks for being new".
It's about them changing the design of a Fallout game so drastically that it barely resembles a Fallout game anymore.
Sure we have the factions and lore but the core design is too different, too Oblivionized.
Still fun games, but neither FO3 or NV are worthy sequels IMO.

When creating a sequel you don't scrap the original design of the series, you try to improve it.
Bethesda did not do that and just went Oblivion With Guns with it; Not a worthy Fallout game.
And as I said, Obsidian had to make do with what they were given so while far superior it still comes up short.
So yes, they changed it, for the better? Maybe for Elder Scrolls fans or new fans but for Fallout fans? I doubt it.
But I can't speak for every older Fallout fan, for me though the change was not for the better.
It did not take 5 steps forward.
It took 5 steps to the side.

We re not, Im talking about the end of the game. You refering to if NCR gets mad at you.

Tim Cain understood Fallout 1 and 2, I didn't say he did not, his aim to explore the ethics in a post-nuclear world was hindered by the implementation of turn-play that detracted from role-play to explore those ethics. He knackered to a large extent his own aim.

And you think that F3 where 2'000 caps turn you from very evil to very good, where even attempted mass genocide and blowing up a town still just never seems to kill major quest providers or even many named NPC is better?

Or nuking the BOS and only the guy on the radio has anything to say about or how anyone never runs away from you if done that.

Yeah you did actually.

Me: "Somehow I think Tim Cain might have a better grasp on the "essences" of Fallout 1 and 2 than you Sitruc."
You: "No not really."

You're seriously attempting to make an argument based around the premise that you understand what Tim Cain set out to do better than Tim Cain himself. Even for you this is ridiculous (and hilarious).

Tim Cain said:-
"My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world"

His own words! and the essences of his aim of Fallout 1 and 2!

His aim to explore the ethics in a post-nuclear world was hindered by the implementation of turn-play that detracted from role-play to explore those ethics. He knackered to a large extent his own aim. He lost his grip in effect.

Right and Tim Cain, the man who said that and created a game series based around that saw no conflict between that goal and turn-based combat. You do. Who is right? The game designer who obviously knows his own intentions or some random person on the Internet interpreting his statement second-hand who says turn-based combat ruins that without providing any reasons?

Figured out why this is hilarious yet?

What does FPP and Isometric TB gameplay have to do with ethics?

In what way does the combat system detract from why the combat is occuring in the first place?

You keep using words like canon and ethics in ways that imply that you don't know what they actually mean. What exactly does turn based gameplay have to do with the exploration of ethics?

I believe he is saying that turn-based play hindered Tim Cain's vision to explore the eithics of a post-nuclear world, and becuase Fallout 3 had better graphics, it allowed for that to occur.

Which none the less a silly argument.

Sitruc, I have to say that its people like you who give us Fallout 3 players and advocaters a bad name. :spotted owl:

I know what he's saying, it just doesn't make any sense. Turn based gameplay and graphics have nothing to do with the exploration of ethics in a post apocalyptic world.

I agree.

Fallout 3 is a great game in my opinion, but it fell short of that "explore the eithics of a post-nuclear world" part.

It's pretty bad Sitruc when you have people on your own side agreeing that your giving them a bad name and are ridiculous. XD

Also According to that logic as explained above, I guess only picture books can properly explore ethics or stories then right? XD

Hindered by the implementation of turn-play that detracted from role-play to explore those ethics.

Turn-base play uses up far more time, excessively more time than real time.
Yes or no?

That time could be better spent doing what he said his aim was....
"My idea is to explore more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world"
...instead of messing about taking turns, time that could be better used in exploration of the ethics (his aim).

He knackered to a large extent his own aim.

Yeah it takes longer for us to play but the game isn't on a time limit is it? So because we, the player, have to wait for the opponent to complete his turn, Tim didn't put many ethical choices in?

Whatever the time spent on the game, the proportion of time used for ethics exploration will be less ... if the greater proportion of time is used for turn-play combat.


That time could be better spent doing what he said his aim was....
"My idea is to explore more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world"
...instead of messing about taking turns, time that could be better used in exploration of the ethics (his aim).

He knackered to a large extent his own aim.

I get what you mean now. For us we will spend more time in combat than exploring ethics? I still don't see how that is a failure, more like personal taste; sure it took a really long time to kill all of the raiders that were threatening Vault City but I never forgot why I was there fighting them.

Unless you're rushing through the game I don't see why this even matters.

His aim was ethics but ended up mostly combat. So much for his aim.

Yeah they are still there only that the mechanic ends up dragging out the combat. If deciding whether a game was thought engaging/provocative boiled down to a simple combat:not in combat ratio then no game would be those things. Doesn't that apply to F3? I spent a more time fighting through Raven Rock and the Purifier but those are the 'ethical' choices that the game was built around.

Not to the player who isn't interested in ethics. But that was Tim Cain's aim, well he said it was, but game time proportionately ended up mostly combat turn-play.