The quests were well designed in that there are several ways to approach them. The entire New Reno area struck me as barely plausible in terms of game setting. It bothered me a little bit, but I could live with it. I'll give it some leeway.

Arguments like the ones in this thread tend to be pointless because much of it is subjective. For me, the ultimate Fallout game would be one with FO1 social and mechanics complexity with FO3s graphics.

Believe we were talking about depth, not coherence in the game world (although FO3 has some of those problems as well). The New Reno setting may be out of place, but by itself the city is well designed.

Part of the argument was whether depth overcomes coherence, and I infer that it's a matter of taste. In my case, the New Reno series of quests, although somewhat ot of line with the gameworld, is acceptable because it is well designed regardless. I might come down the other way for other parts of the game.

You're starting to wear on my nerves, lad. I've already stated that yes, I was exaggerating and yes, my point still remains the same.



By definition that was an indirect reply and on the defensive for Fallout 3. It hasn't been until just now that you addressed the New Reno depth. I'll agree with you that it's a bit ludicrous for the environment but we were talking about depth not believability or relevence, no? As for your first statement, what exactly have I not responded to you about? Let's just get that out of the way right now so you can let it rest already. Man alive, I'd absolutely hate to go to a movie and dinner with you...I fear your voice raising in your head as you type.



I already stated that the reasons for her quests were well-designed because they got you to explore and yes, introduce game mechanics. However, yes they are all basically fetch quests. Some deeper and more interesting than others. I actually thought it was cool how some of them gave you a perk at the end. Not everything I say is a critique, sometimes it's just stating the same thing you are but without the sugar-coating you like to apply.




Once again an unlikely pair comes to a perfect agreement. :hehe:




Yes. In fact it is this very depth in game design which saved the game for many people who didn't quite fall in love with the added silliness or canon-molesting.



Agreed again.

I have read your posts (as well as everyone else's in this thread.) I'm not getting into what seems to have become a very heated and emotional debate, or responding directly to anyone else's post unless I've directly quoted from it. I'm only putting my two cents in, and nothing yourself (or anyone else) has said has changed my views on that particular subject.

Which is that I don't frankly see a problem with Fallout 3 using factions and themes from the previous games. I've stated why I feel that way, and it's your perogative to disagree with my reasoning. This isn't a matter where there is one single subjective "answer" and has everything to do with personal opinions.

What's strange here, and the reason I asked you, is that from my understanding of your previous post, I agree with you. It just doesn't appear that you either read or acknowledged what I posited with mine.

EDIT: to repost how I basically agree with you about Fallout 3 using factions and themes and where my actual disappointment lies:

Firstly, you asked me why I thought it was a good story - I linked my synopsis of the story. Basically, that when viewed in the context of a narrative about the game world as opposed to a narrative about the Player, a lot of things stand out. I guess this was zero new information for you because this is the next thing you said about it:

Note, this is after I made http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=100 clarifying all the ways that FO3's story is exactly not "pretty standard fare". But whatever, I assume that you thought my points were totally invalid and beneath even your contempt - certainly ignoring the bulk of what I'm saying and then saying that you can't be bothered to respond gives a person that impression.

Oh, and here's your "sugar-coating" of that 90% line:

So, you've stepped back from 90%. Now it's just somewhere between 50%-89% cribbed. You are saying that the majority of Fallout 3's content is a copy/paste job. You are saying for example that the changes made to the BoS to get to the Capital Wasteland chapter is an example of "without much expansion" - oh wait, that's probably just one of the areas where the crew at Beth just misinterpreted the Lore - despite the existence of the Outcasts and their story.

And in regards to "direct" responses versus "indirect" responses - I apologize. I thought the idea of depth in quest design was more important the New Reno specifically. I was trying to address your point and not your example - from here on, I'll keep in mind that you really are interested in the superficials.

Don't worry about my behavior on dates - please don't. Judging by the way you ignore stuff I say - you'll probably invent some reason to report me to the police.

I'll state my opinion on the story one more time and then I'm done with this:

Fallout 1 had a water chip. Fallout 3 has water purification. In both games you're sent out in order to rescue/save/help humanity progress. Fallout 3's ending is most likely a direct result of Bethesda's developers wanting to emulate the same kind of non-traditional slap in the face for reality's sake instead of slapping a Spielbergian ending arbitrarily onto it. What happens in-between is certainly different but not so ground-breaking when you consider Bethesda was basically using what had already been established in the series as a platform to build off of.

Now...more importantly:

At first it was somewhat entertaining and interesting to debate with you in a "+1" sort of way but now it's grown beyond tiresome. Most of the issues you have brought up I've addressed. I'm sorry if you don't like my answers or feel cheated by them. This has gone on for long enough and is so far from the topic of the thread it's ridiculous. Personally, I've had enough of your melodramatic and patronizing posting style and I don't care to continue this with you. I can't figure out if it's an ego or insecurity issue with you that makes you take offense at everybody who has a criticism you do not agree with or does not appreciate the aspects of the game you appreciate. I doubt the developers of the game themselves would go to such great lengths to defend the game.

Now, speaking of a word you seem to enjoy throwing around: "ignore" I suggest you simply place me on your ignore list if my posts and opinions get you so terribly upset. It will save you time and an early trip to the doctors I'd presume.

Thank you for your advice - I know you mean it sincerely since, as you pointed out earlier, I am the patronizing one - not you.

I think I'll hang around and see if you have any more "exaggerations" you'd like to post regarding this game.

Cheers.

All this because he doesn't know what a hyperbole is, heh.

Watch this:
Fallout 2 is unplayable. The game is quite unoriginal with the story basically cribbed from Mad Max - and cribbed badly. It crashes every five minutes. The sound will make you want to stab yourself in the ears and the graphics will make you wish you were blind. I'd make fun of the storyline, but there are too many plotholes in it to be a stable target.

Fallout 1 is a million times worse.

Note: I may have exagerrated slightly, but the point still stands that both of the games are crap.

Edit: Having just realized that reading comprehension is low amongst the target audience of the above rant - let me state that I absolutely do NOT mean any of the above. I'm trying to make a point about how the "exaggerations" and "hyperbole" directed at FO3 makes me feel. FO1 and FO2 are fantastic games and the "review" above the edit is just blatant lying.

Bravo, you know what it means, despite all evidence to the contrary. Yes, and now I'll post on and keep mentioning and arguing against your exaggerated statement. But yes, reading comprehension is low amongst everyone that disagrees with you. You, who is amazed by the story in Fallout 3, that is far beyond run of the mill quality for an RPG, and think that some crutches and toys near a sniper is depth. Heh, amusing.

In any event, this thread has gone amusingly off-field, hah. Oh well. One good thing, I didn't know that Van Buren was to change the SPECIAL system from the earlier games, someone mentioned it a ways back - just caught that.

Umm, no - reading comprehension is low amongst people who - after being shown things they missed in their assessment of FO3 - insist that they know the game has no depth. People who think that inferring a story from objects actually placed in a game (placed for the purpose of implying a story) amounts to "playing make believe" which is a no-no in a Role Playing Game.

Reading comprehension is low in people who think that using the same names is copying, even if the storylines are different - and it is especially low in those who, after making the above argument - accuse others of not understanding "depth".

I've stated before - I don't care of you don't like FO3. The game is definitely NOT FOR EVERYONE. I don't care if you think hitting yourself in the head with a claw hammer is better than playing FO3. I just want people to NOT LIE about the game, and then excuse their lying by saying "maybe a bit of an exaggeration but the point is still true".

Ok, I take it back, you're not quite sure of what the point of a hyperbole is. I don't think I missed any depth in FO3 - I missed crutches after killing some random Mook with a sniper rifle, and skipped out on my in-game fantasizing about the interesting backstory to him. I don't think anyone said the game had no depth. It loses in a comparison with Fallout 2, which was my point after your brought up iamgomez's claim. The game has depth, but as a sandbox, it's naturally going to be a bit more broad than deep. As for your make-believe, isn't a bit silly to play make-believe while playing make-believe ? And if that's where it gets its depth to clobber Fallout 2's locations - well Fallout 2 would still come ahead. But ok, my arguments are meaningless due to your proclamation so.

So basically everyone that disagrees with you, is stupid ? Is that it ? This game, heh, is FOR EVERYONE, by the way. That's why it sells quite well.

All I'm saying is that you don't know what depth you're missing in FO3. The very fact that I've shown you something that you walked right past and not noticed is evidence of that fact. Perhaps, maybe, there's the slightest possibility that there's more to FO3 than you've given it credit for. You know, after reading about Arkansas - I certainly had the thought "What else did I miss?". Apparently, for you it just meant that the game is even shallower than you thought it was before. Afterall, only lazy devs would write Minefield that way.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me - I have a problem with people who post untrue things about FO3. Not stuff I disagree with, but stuff that's actually not true. "generic shooter" "90% copied and copied badly" that sort of thing.

Yeah you see, your last line is a bit of BS. Claims of the game being a shooter and copying are things you disagree with, and you can argue against them. It doesn't make it a lie. Your claim that FO3 has more depth than FO2 isn't a lie, it's a statement I disagree with and can argue against. So cut the crusade.

As for missing depth, well I've already reiterated myself about the depth as I see it in FO3. The initial argument was comparing it to FO2, not an issue of FO3 being a game utterly devoid of depth. It's a sandbox game, so I'm not expecting locations with deep backstories and lore, after all. A statement in comparison isn't an absolute.

I'm locking this thread - it's drifted off topic and seems to now be a couple of members arguing with each other. If you have some other pertinent points you want to clear up, take it to PMs. Thank you.