try playing Fallout 1 today ^^ : Fallout Series Discussion

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:15 pm

Out of those two, pillars for me personally.

But I'd urge you to check out a game on steam and gog called underrail. It's the game that feels most like fallout 1 and 2 that I've played in a long time. Combat is so fun, makes wasteland and pillars feel like a chore in comparison.

It took 7 years to make, the game is HUGE and there are so many different builds.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:13 am

Just reading the article, the guy is exploiting ai, reloading multiple times to reverse pickpocket guys, using mines on bosses until their health is low enough and getting other npcs to kill them and farms experience for countless hours making settlements.

The guy who did it even says that a pacifism run clearly wasn't meant to be possible and wonders why it's so hard in this fallout. Even Todd Howard didn't think it was possible.

From the article:

"The entire thing is a test of patience. The run makes ample use of save scumming, that is, the practice of saving before taking an important action and then reloading if it fails. Fallout 4 has a perk called “Wasteland Whisperer” which lets the player pacify enemies—instead of attacking the player, the enemy will simply put their hands up. However, having the perk doesn’t guarantee it’ll work. It just gives you a chance of calming down your enemies, and Hinckley can’t rely on a dice roll to complete the game with zero kills. So he reloads and tries, tries again, until it actually goes through.

It’s a brute-force method, yes. Like I said earlier, Fallout 4 really doesn’t want you to play the game this way, and all of its mechanics ensure that, at some point during a normal playthrough, you’ll have to lodge bullets into someone’s noggin. Even if you take the so-called peaceful perks."

’I can’t tell you that you can play the whole game without violence – that’s not necessarily a goal of ours,’ Howard told The Guardian.”

In fallout 1 I literally beat the game with a character at level 7 who used sneak, speech and outdoorsman as tag skills and never used a weapon and managed to talk my way through encounters, without killing, and it was designed to be able to be done that way. No game exploits or anything. There's a big difference from an RPG being designed to play numerous different ways, one being a pacifist, and somebody glitching and exploiting a game to be able to do it.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:56 am

Still, it really doesn't make Fallout 4 "advanced far cry" or purely "action packed" there is still a lot of things you can do to solve certain quests without violence.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:19 pm

It took him 5 hours to kill Kellogg. lol..wow. Clearly, as pointed out above, the game is not designed to this play style, which is again what we talking about.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:04 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8bx3mTfj2M

In comparison to Fallout 3? ...Maybe a little bit, I guess?

I still feel that Fallout 3 had more interesting quests and ideas, even if the main plot can be deconstructed into utter nonsense. Fallout 4 certainly didn't feel anywhere close to even mediocre levels as far as writing goes.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:43 am

Don't see how that video is relevant at all.

Fallout 3 had a lot of stupid ideas and most of the quests were really boring and lacking any personality. Hell, just look at Rivet City and actually think if anyone would live in a rusted out, falling apart death trap. Fallout 4's main story was also way better, so was their actual attempt at making the factions all grey instead of "Here is the good guys, here are the bad guys and here are the pathetic attempts at neutral we tried to do" that New Vegas did.

Fallout 4 may have some bad points but I can nitpick numerous things from the other games and say "LOOK BAD WRITING THIS IS QUALITY OF THE ENTIRE GAME" but that literally gets us nowhere.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:10 pm

:rofl:

Please, continue. I like your ... novel way of thinking.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:43 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:36 pm

Caesar's Legion "Oh we make everything safe, just so long as you listen to us and if you don't onto the cross you go, also we're big fans of imperialism, sixism, racism, xenophobia, religious oppression and by that I mean if you don't worship Caesar we're going to burn you alive and [censored] your wife and daughters before putting them in chains also all your elders and sick have to go and your sons will be forced into being warriors"

NCR "We set up food kitchens, farms, rebuild power plants, bring trade, set up refuge camps, won't kill you or [censored] your children if you don't agree with everything we say and we bring democracy, sure we have some corruption that could be fixed but relatively we're good people."

House "Robots solve everything MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS WITH LIBERTARIAN IDEALS WORK TRUST ME!"

Yesman "Oh wait crap, you can screw over the other three right? Better make a system to still progress through the main quest!"

And don't get me started on the fact a majority of dealing with factions through the Main Quest is just "Hey go deal with the side-factions"

Yea, at least 4 tries to make all the factions into questionable morality instead of saying "well you see the bad guys aren't bad despite they're written to be bad and the good guys aren't good despite being written to be good and the one questionable side isn't all that well written and when thought is put into it really doesn't make sense and of course the dues ex machina that is the poorly written in back-up position"

New Vegas shines more with it's background lore, I'll agree with that but when it comes to actual thought of the factions it's clear who fits what position. "Moral complexity" bullcrap reasoning is just someone whimpering in the corner trying to write off that yea, New Vegas did a poor job with it's factions.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:45 pm

I thought Fallout 3's quests were largely stupid, but I wouldn't say they were lacking in personality. If anything Bethesda tried too hard to make every quest a zany adventure.

Fallout 3's ridiculous world design is a common criticism here. I agree that Fallout 4 is a vast improvement in this area.

Than Fallout 3's? I appreciated it a bit more since it was more original than FO3's messy Frankenstein monster rehash of Fallout and Fallout 2's storylines, but the storytelling was still poor. I ended up cringing during the entire "big reveal" concerning the protagonist's son.

It had better writing than Fallout 3 overall, though.

There's only one major Fallout 4 faction that I would call gray, the Brotherhood of Steel... the rest can be clearly classified as either good or evil. With New Vegas there were only three factions, and two of them were intended to be (and indeed are) morally gray, NCR and House. The Legion was intended to be evil, but even then they've done more good for their section of the wasteland than the Institute has done for theirs.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:15 pm

I'm sorry you see it differently than most interested people (not that majority belief equals truth, but it's a good indicator). You can like Bethesda's trope-driven "in your face" approach, but having a bit of sense for subtlety can be handy!

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:01 am

No, railroad can also be seen morally grey as can the Institute. New Vegas is constantly pushing the NCR as good guys who just want to help out, House I will agree can be seen as morally grey though.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:40 pm

The Railroad doesn't do anything that leads me to believe they're morally gray. The only people they actually harm to my knowledge are the Brotherhood of Steel and the Institute. If these guys were actively harming the innocent people of Diamond City or elsewhere for their cause that would be another matter entirely, but I personally didn't see anything to imply that they were hurting anyone who wasn't involved.

The Institute has committed a number of atrocities towards the people of the Commonwealth out of apathy and\or xenophobia, and they've done nothing good to make up for them.

For all the good the NCR does, there's some flaw, or immoral act to balance it out. The NCR may be well meaning overall, but that doesn't change the fact that they force people to join them, even resorting to underhanded, morally reprehensible tactics if they refuse, and then there's stuff like Bitter Springs where NCR Command knew they were ordering their soldiers to gun down the sick, elderly, and children of the Great Khans, and didn't care.

The NCR's military leaders are shown to favor mass murder over diplomacy throughout the entirety of New Vegas. Colonel Moore's personal reaction aside, you actually lose reputation with them if you seek a diplomatic solution with many of the groups they consider against their interests.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:26 am

The first encounters with ncr is a town that is overrun with gang members and had the populace in lock down while the ncr sits across the bridge,,aware of the situation, but does nothing because it's not their jurisdiction and gotta go through proper protocol and other levels of bureaucracy.

Then you got the Mojave outpost that is keeping everyone, including private caravans on lockdown and not letting anyone leave. Nothing terrible, but nothing inherently good either.

Then you have boulder city, they are in a situation with great Khans, and hostages are being held. The courier can make a deal with them, the Khan's release the hostage, and then the ncr gets orders to take them out, deal or not.

Then you got the jacobstown ncr hired mercenaries that are sent by ncr to provoke the mutants into fighting, so they can show they aren't peaceful and wipe them all out.

It seems like the game isn't doing the greatest job at turning ncr into good guys. Seems like a pretty morally grey faction if you ask me.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:32 am

You mean the town where the NCR soldiers say they wish they could do something but don't have the manpower? Oh and you mean the outpost where they're waiting for manpower to clear the road? Ah, yes let's take a situation caused by the great khans and turn it into a situation to badmouth the NCR, the great khans who kidnapped and threaten to kill two NCR soldiers before the officer could radio in that the situation was cleared? Oh and of course the Jacobstown thing, yea privately funded mercenaries tracking down super mutants who have been raiding NCR caravans.

Each situation is explained and using them as "oh this is proof they're morally grey" is pretty pathetic. At most it shows that the NCR doesn't have millions of soldiers and can solve every problem. The Jacobstown one you privately funded by caravans and they're attempt to attack Jacobstown is entirely their fault and the Great Khans situation was created by the Great Khans.

Anyway this is starting to feel like it's getting off topic so I think it's better we go back on topic, despite what each person may think opinions are opinions and agreeing to disagreeing is what we'll have to do unless someone wants to start a thread in the NV forums.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:47 pm

Since a common rebuttal sentiment is you need to employ your imagination for the older games.

It seems you could say the same thing for FO3. Why do imaginations become more hampered by it?

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:07 am

That is a common rebuttal sentiment that I have never heard and makes no sense to me. The only time imagination tends to come up is when people insist its okay that the new Fallouts have terrible character systems because true roleplayers imagine and supply their own limitations or that Bethesda makes the best games ever because they can imagine so many things are going on that demonstrably aren't. What are you talking about in relation with the older games?

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:54 am

To be fair a lot of old RPG mechanics and playstyles are so unnecessarily badly made and obtuse in design, it's an archaic design that even developers trying to bring back the same top-down isometric games are kicking it to the curb in favor of better designed systems.

For instance take Fallout 1's skills. I can be the most stealthy sneak but if I don't have a certain amount in steal I'm instantly awful at taking an item off the counter? Or Doctor and first aid. I can be the Wasteland version of Dr. House but I can be garbage at first aid. How does that make any sense?

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:04 am

I'm only gonna comment on the Legion one because you seem to have a misconception on the intent with their faction. Obsidian did not pretend like Caesar's Legion were as gray a faction as the other three. They were terrible, because *shocker* terrible groups actually exist and sometimes gain power.

Spoiler

JESawyer in response to questioning about Caesar's Legion:

lastboss-of-theinternet asked: 3 disclaimers: I love New Vegas, love the legion (hope they will have the samelongevity and presence in franchise as the NCR do, even though I feel its unlikely), and I'm sorry if this question has been asked before. Why, in a game thats trying to be more political and morally grey, did you make the Legion so irredeemable? Prejudiced, tyrannical, Luddite, brutal, cannibalistic, the list goes on. Their land is supposed to be peaceful and what not, but its safe to assume that wont outlast caesar.

Between the NCR, House, and an independent Vegas, I felt that the player had three “soft” grey choices. The NCR is a soupy mess because that’s how republics tend to be. There’s a lot of corruption, bureaucracy, political pandering, and petty abuses at high levels of authority, but those are things the Courier can steer like a big, awkward ship. You can influence how the NCR deals with various groups and get mostly the results you expect, but there are side effects because the NCR is still a soupy mess at the end of it.

With House, there’s not much negotiation. He knows exactly what he wants with very little margin for course-correction. You can go behind Colonel Moore’s back to ally NCR with the Brotherhood of Steel. There’s no going behind House’s back and staying on his good side. House is strong and stable within his small sphere of influence but dictatorial within that sphere. He leverages economic power and access to resources (water and electricity) to maintain control, as far as that goes.

The independent ending is “free” with all of the consequences that come with a weak/non-existent government. Each sub-faction within New Vegas is free to conduct themselves as they wish, often coming into conflict with other sub-factions. As there’s no higher governing or law enforcement body (exception: Securitrons), it’s pretty hard for things to run smoothly.

Caesar created the Legion through brutal means and he is only able to maintain the Legion through similar, in some cases even more severe, means. All of the tribes he conquered and incorporated into the Legion learned that this was “the way”. Caesar couldn’t allow members of the Legion to maintain their own languages and customs because it undermined solidarity. He couldn’t allow traditional families because it tied soldiers to people and places – people other than Caesar and fellow legionaries. He couldn’t allow rank and file recruits access to advanced weaponry or technology because it undermined fear of superiors and reliance on Caesar.

Of course, all of this only “functions” and continues to grow if the Legion continues to conquer and/or increases its slave population. But Caesar’s long-term dream is of the Legion watching over a civilian empire, which is why he’s so dead-set on New Vegas.

So, the Legion is the way it is because Caesar is a warlord who maintains control through his cult of personality and the fear of his disapproval (with severe consequences). The historical Caesar was known for being unusually merciful, but he was playing to societies that were much more accepting of mercy. Caesar taught the Legion mercilessness, so that is what they expect, what they consider strong.

There’s nothing really morally grey about Liberia’s Charles Taylor, but he’s a real guy who did astoundingly terrible things for the sake of maintaining power. In the context of F:NV, I don’t think Caesar and the Legion need to be thought of as “grey” like the player’s other options. I think they can be what they are, as they are, because the lie of their fiction is intended to provoke thoughts about truth, i.e. the nature of humans who rise to power in such circumstances. When we say “war never changes”, we’re talking about things like this.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:27 am

My point is you can still employ imagination in Fo3 ... most notably hardcoe mode that the console users have to do.

And if you have a PC ... your tools to fulfill your imagination just got a whole lot larger. Without needing to be a brainiac modder even.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:57 am

Who said it did? The Fallout 1/2 character system is imperfect to say the least. Being better than the miserable, barely-present systems of 3/NV/4 does not require much which was basically my point.

I don't recall saying you can't. I'm asking you in what way is imagination necessary for the older games as you suggested? As I've said the only times I've seen imagination come up on these forums is in reference to the newer games, usually as a way of excusing their terrible character systems or some flawed design by saying the player should supply their own imaginary solutions.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:11 pm

Particularly in 4

Due to this whole voiced protagonist thing and his set background and deeply personal driving goal you're really limited on role playing.

Not only that but they just absolutely beat you over the head making it clear how they want and expect you to react to things.

You can pretend xxxxxx isn't psychic. But she is. She absolutely is.

You might want to refuse to believe the truth about xxxx when you meet him, but it is what it is and you don't really get to express much. You're either accepting, angry, or begrudgingly accepting.

You can still pretend what you please, but the narrative is constantly reminding you what you're supposed to be doing and how you're not only supposed to feel - but how you DO feel. Which is sad and missing your son. Shauuuunnnnnnn.

I hope Bethesda takes the criticism they've received from games journalism into account and corrects their course, but they're all about the dollar these days and they made a pretty penny off of Fallout 4

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:09 pm

Imagination is all on the player, if someone has to force imagination on you it's entirely on you, not the game or the developers. The play-style doesn't effect imagination, the mechanics don't effect imagination the only person to blame for not having enough imagination is just on you, no one else.

This point assumes that everyone has the same imagination standards as you do or that imagination can only be accompanied by a certain playstyle or mechanics. I can play FO3, NV and FO4 and use the same amount of imagination I did for Fallout 1 or 2. The character systems aren't anymore flawed then they were in 1 or 2 (reminder, 1 and 2 had what, three portraits for the playable character and also starts the player with a pre-defined background that you can't change, to someone that sounds like a flawed character system) and as I've stated before the mechanics in 1 and 2 were very flawed in design.

Imagination isn't a requirement in any game, Bethesda isn't saying you need imagination in order to play the games, no one is saying you need to have an imagination. Players don't use it as an excuse (a silly claim I've yet to see on these forums or on any of the Bethesda forums for that matter) but to expand the world to have more fun. It's their choice to have an imagination while playing, it's their choice to say their characters act a certain way or identify with a certain faction or use a type of weapon.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:26 pm

Something that really bugs me about this is how completely unnecessary it was. The story didn't in any way benefit from the halfhearted attempt at family drama, it was about the factions, and the son was just the McGuffin of the hour. You could have replaced him with just about anything and the story still would have worked, in fact it would have probably made more sense without the poor explanations they used to justify where the son is and why.

That aspect of the story felt like someone at Bethesda restricting the player's ability to role play just because they thought they were a cleverer writer than they actually are.

» Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:43 pm

So it's a McGuffin like the water chip, or the Geck, or the Lone Wanderer's Dad, or the Platinum chip. Fallout has a pretty common trend of having a McGuffin that is just a starter quest before leading into the main event. Each one, depending on the player, can have a different emotional attachment.

Why should I care about Vault 13 getting a new water chip? Why should I care about Arroyo getting a Geck? Why should I care about the Lone Wanderer's dad? Why should I care about the Platinum chip? Each one is a McGuffin and it's entirely up to the player to decide if they have any emotional attachment to it.