Weird, it sure felt like a bunch of MMO-style quest hubs to me, I guess it's just the detachment from the rest of the game world those places have.

i have played fallout 2, not 1, and the speacil AND perk systems are worse. Perks have no down side whatsoever, and come every level, instead of every 3 or 4 levels(depending on what you took for traits).

Traits had downsides, not perks. But then again, there are no traits in F3, so maybe F3's perks should've had some downsides.

I do think Traits would have improved some of our gripes about the game. For instance, if STR doesn't limit weapon usage, then I wouldn't have minded if I could pick a "Weakling" Trait that limited my accuracy with larger weapons (which are clearly stated on description) while giving me an extra point on my INT or AGI, or something. Or a "Dumb" Trait that gave me those "stupid" Dialogue options from the older Fallout games but added to your base damage, STR, or something.

Heh, that was the first thing I noticed. "Where the hell are my traits?" It should be noted that I didn't really follow the development of Fallout 3 by Bethesda.

Then I noticed I had a Perk at level 3. And things kinda went more downhill from there, like when I hit my first 100.

Indeed, it found it very strange as they had a similar thing to traits in the game they based it off of, Oblivion in the form of birthsigns....

Funny, I started playing Oblivion last month and that was the first thing that struck me. I thought, "hey why didn't they do this with F3 as well?". They were in the right direction but for some reason decided to go with the no-penalty-ever style of gameplay for F3. Which is odd, since the original games' gameplay were exactly the opposite.

Thats one of the things that has us "hardcoe" or what ever you want to call us people that want a more tradicial form of the SPECIAL ruleset implemented scratching out heads. I mean they pretty much have all the mechanics for Oblivion in FO3 but the one they take away is the most "fallouty" one.

Agreed.

I'd like to see traits make a comeback and I expect it will in future installments (whether be FO:NV or beths next title)

It makes no sense. Here's why.
Gun: Aim, pull trigger, reload, repeat.
Melee: Smack the thing with it or stab with it.
Unarmed: Punch

Clean up time? - maybe.

OK, posts deleted and any further digging at each other and arguing will be done away from this forum or via PM otherwise I will warn and suspend accounts - simple as that.

A best seller...



If you have a few hours just to learn to play.



But when statistics make no sense, they make no sense.

And when they do make sense. They do make, sense.

I guess that's sorted then. Fallout in it's current state is missing sensible and dynamic numerical wizardry. Which is a shame, because it deserves alot more depth.

Not all great games are best sellers, and not all best sellers are great games. Some are both, some are neither. In my opinion, Fallout 3 is so popular because its developer likes to play it safe. Companies like this seem to have no faith in their fanbase whatsoever. Everything is just painted over and trivialised, because there's a greater chance the majority will accept it, without the game in question being very groundbreaking, or such an evolution of its roots, so much as a complete uprooting and replanting.

But I suppose in today's mainstream market, loyalty is hard to establish when fans are so easy to please. But then it is the developers responsibility to have confidence in themselves and their market.

I know I wouldn't use sales as a measuring stick for quality. The problem with that is users today are incredibly easy to please, so all it really takes is a really good marketing team.

Say, the Sims. I personally do not think it's a great game. It's basically taking a break from your boring life to watch the boring life of a virtual person. The only amusing thing in the Sims is the fact that you can play the jerky god who removes doors, creates death traps, and generally ruins lives because said god is bloody bored.

But it's probably the greatest selling francise in gaming. Namely because it's target audience is so frickin' huge.

On the statistics that don't make sense front, it was a pretty straight forward system before. Your stats were on a scale of 1-10, 1 being the lowest demoninator, and 10 being the peak of the human condition. Starting skills were derived from those numbers based on equations, and you add skillpoints on level up to improve them. Simple. How does that not make sense?

And as for taking hours to learn it, um. You must have played a different version then I did. It's really pretty straight forward. Common sense would say you should pick the obviously easy skills on your first play through so you get a feel for the system, like Small Arms, Speech, and First Aid. Once you've progressed through a few levels, its pretty clear how the game works, so I really don't understand the "few hours to learn how to play" argument :shrug:

Atronach perk: the PC gets 50 extra Action Points, but one's Action Points do not automatically restore, save by popping Jet.

That's awfully TES-like, could we at least give it a different name?

As for learning to play the game taking a few hours: that's only partly true. You can get the hang of the controls and basic functions of your skills pretty easily, because the descriptions you get to see are pretty much self-explanatory and the moments when you need to use them are pretty obvious. Your messagebox let's you know if you're using it correctly or can't use it so that couldn't be a problem. Sometimes though, things need to be done in a certain way or they don't work, which they could have made easier (for example putting the beam and dynamite onto the minecart at Mariposa in Fallout 2). Those moments don't even occur 5 times in Fallout 1 and 2 together though, and are easy to figure out if you look it up on the internet. Just because Fallout 1 and 2 require a short learning process to figure something out, instead of holding your hand throughout the game, doesn't mean you have to learn how to play for hours after hours.

Well since it's "Oblivion with guns" anyway...

Sure, some people think that, it's their right to have that opinion about Fallout 3. But naming perks like that gives people just another example on the list they use to claim Fallout 3 is "Oblivion with guns" ^_^

Ideas along those lines I think would be acceptable to most. (Ofcourse not called atronach) Mostly though gifted, small frame and so on should make comeback along with some other traits that far more creative minds than me can come up with.

Oh, I think Beth's fanbase generally likes Fallout. BIS's old fanbase, maybe not so much, but BIS didn't make the game. Beth made this game to appeal to THEIR fanbase first, and maybe, at the same time, capture a bit of the old BIS followers.

So it looks like Beth did exactly what you call them to do: They developed a game to the tastes of their fans, they dramatically expanded the box in terms of the normal type of game they make (TES, and there are a set of TES fans who dislike FO3, hence the risk), and the apparent financial success of the game tends to indicate that they have substantial confidence in themselves and their market. Confidence is further demonstrated in releasing a string of again, apparently successful, DLCs designed to appeal tho, again, the BETH FANBASE.

On the subject of fanbase loyalty when it comes to Beth, they have some of the best 'loyal' fans out there. Look at the registered users on this forum alone. I've owned and played Bethesda games since about 4-6 years ago and that includes their older games I've played aswell.

I'm a fan of BIS, most rpg fans are, I just hate the us and them mentality when it comes to F3. I like F1,F2 and F3.I recognise faults in all of these games (or any game for that matter), but I still enjoy them. I love good writing and tactical gameplay, I also love great settings and wonderfully crafted worlds.

Anyway I again say the main problem here is the 'Us and them' mentality, the developers reguarly visit these forums (Check Todd or emils login), although they do not post they are obviously looking for feedback and when it is so often coming down to the 'Us and Them' arguments they will more than likely have any good suggestions ignored. I assume we all love the fallout franchise, we should just have generally constructive arguments without the camp battles that occur so frequenetly that would in turn lead to more of these great (and not so great) suggestions getting the attention they deserve.

Thats just my two cents(or two pence ).

Well said. The polarizing quality of some of these discussions isn't going to get us anywhere, nor do I think it leads to an accurate representation of people's feelings. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'd wager even some of the more "critical" members here have elements of Fallout 3 that they're impressed with. I think few people would say that Bethesda didn't bring anything worthwhile to the table. I'd wager alot of the more "dedicated" fans of Bethesda's vision of the series would admit that some elements could have been better, or that there's at least room for improvement.

Room for improvement is fine, but the real problem here is the different views of what an RPG should be, and many of the improvements suggested here ahve more to do with skewing the game towards the individual's perception of their ideal RPG. Fallout 3 has faults, to be sure, but many of the features so denigrated by many are the same features that make FO3 close to an ideal game for me.

Ah well, it's the interenets. Somebody is always absolutely right about the definition of something, and therefore someone else must be absolutely wrong. I am always amused by the arguments over what is and isn't an RPG on this forum, some folks have decided opinions, based on their personal preference or gaming experience. Which is fine Me, I tend to be flexible in my thinking about what I like and don't like in a game, and aware that nothing about game genres is set in stone, what with shifting technology and tastes.

Amusing that you think they'd take a suggestion contrary to their belief on how things should be done. Every forum and discussion is 'us and them', just varying degrees of hostility in how it's applied, heh.