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

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.

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.

No, Combat is a filler, the dialogue, the old holotapes you find, those are the stories and ethics of the wasteland. Don't confuse your impatiance to read dialogue and notes as proven fact of a games fault.

"No, Combat is a filler"
That's the point ... too big a filler, as a proportion, in the early Fallouts 1 and 2.

Nothing to do with impatience! It's the imbalance of proportions.

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.

Yeah that's just not true unless you spent the entire game just shooting everyone on sight. Once again I find myself doubting your actual degree of experience with the originals.

Read above.

Then surely the same applies to F3? The whole 'ethical' choice of the game revolves around fighting the Enclave in Raven Rock and then fighting them all the way to the Purifer.

You didn't provide any proof for your ridiculous and mistaken belief that you spend most of your time in F1 and F2 in combat. This is just not true.

Turn-play combat takes longer. Yes it does! SO--
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. TRUE

I said read above. Try and keep up.

This thread is hilarious. Curtis, the man who knows Fallout better than Tim Cain, and has a hundred gibberish arguments to prove it! Mercy.

I salute your stamina though, even as I despair at your bat[censored] insane logic. :foodndrink:

This thread is hilarious. Curtis, the man who knows Fallout better than Tim Cain, and has a hundred gibberish arguments to prove it! Mercy.

I salute your stamina though, even as I despair at your bat[censored] insane logic. :foodndrink:

Turn-play combat takes longer. Yes it does! SO--
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. TRUE

I said read above. Try and keep up.

I didn't say I knew better. I said his aim of exploring ethics was being hampered by too greater a proportion of time spent on doing turn-play combat ... more time would have been spent exploring ethics if less time was spent on that turn-play combat and done real-time.

And you call that insane logic. Laughs

I didn't say I knew better.

Somehow I think Tim Cain might have a better grasp on the "essences" of Fallout 1 and 2 than you Sitruc.

No not really.

Well-written? This is a hypothetical right because Fallout 3's story was not well written in the least.

All I see here are unfounded opinions; I personally think that Bethesda failed at implimenting any ethical impacts seeing as how Karma can be bought at churches and even blowing up towns and trying to kill everyone with a deadly virus still somehow doesn't kill off major quest providors (presumably because people would complain, so choices having consequences takes a back-burning to appaesing the fan base).

So because a guy has a degree in journalism that instantly makes his opinions better than anyone elses? It's not like a real journalist, he plays a game and tells you if he liked it and why, kind of like what we are doing here; games win awards because a lot of people like them, I don't think that anyone here would argue that the Bethesda bashers outnumber people who like F3.

Won awards from respected reviewers who had earned their respect, over time, for giving accurate reviews.

Fallout New Vegas is less canon because it has a more civilised" post-nuclear world? Did you not notice how the people were rebuilding and making things civilised in Fallout and it was even more so in Fallout 2? There was no radiation everywhere. If anything Fallout 3 is less canon for making everything as if the war happened yesterday and not 200 years ago. They should have followed what was set out in the originals when it comes to the game world. New Vegas is more civilized because it would not make sense to have it like it was in Fallout 3. New Vegas continues the story of a growing NCR. Things becoming more civilised, even with Caesars Legion. Because its human nature to want to rebuild. Not live in ruined radioactive mud holes for 200 years like the people of Fallout 3.

Fallout is about people rebuilding and dealing with other cultures also rebuilding, "war, war never changes."

Edit: I am not saying Fallout 3 isn't canon. Just saying it seems very out of place to me. Out of the 5 canon games Fallout 3 is the odd game out, IMO.

Fallout 3 followed the post-nuclear scenario closer to the early Fallout 1 and 2 than New Vegas did, in that respect Fallout 3 has a closer canon than New Vegas that is not the scenario of the early Fallouts 1 and 2.

Fallout is about a post-nuclear scenario originally intended to explore the ethics in that scenario, and that is what you do in Fallout 3 in essence with the choices you make in the game, as you explore those choices in the game. The game is not actually about city building.