Realism is great, in small doses, to much in it gets to real = boring, every day.
Stalker is one game in the post-apocalyptic department that tried to be to real and got both annoying, boring and slow by being that. Games are meant to entertain, to escape the ordinary world and show new worlds, with different universes and other laws of physics (not the use of illegal substances, games I said). Fallout is great in my opinion, a realistic world, taht still is fun, open to explore and not so realistic it reminds you of real life and you get bored.

Sure, this is a parody of the most loved game on this board, Call of Duty, but you get the point I hope?
Think Fallout instead, but as silly as this :facepalm:
http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/comedy/comedy/1906868833/modern-warfare-parody/50096004001

I think you mean chinese swords...
completley diffrent race/culture/history/people.... :whistling:

Seriously? I think we played different Stalker's (I played only Shadow of Chernobyl), or something. I thought it combined realism with gameplay really well, most of the time. Certainly better than Fallout 3. Then again, I thought Stalker was the better game.

That said, I'd prefer Fallout NV to lean towards realism because when I play the game, it doesn't feel like arcade-style combat and physics would fit into the game. I mean, repairing guns would be removed altogether, if realism was not important (it causes breaks in combat because weapons degrade unrealistically fast, and enemies take so many hits). Obviously, I don't want it to be ultra realistic. I want to be able to run around carrying tons of loot in the desert, if unencumbered, because it would just make the game tedious otherwise. Stalker had relatively lightweight artifacts to sell for money, and even it allowed you to carry 50 kg of stuff (and allowed you to sprint, which was missing from Fallout 3 D:).

I say realistic gameplay is good. Oh, also, internal consistency in setting (duh).

I think it needs to be realistic, but not in a sense of "no giant ants, or plasma guns, or funny things!" but just in gameplay. Like the shooting, fighting, healing, aiming parts of it needs to be realistic. Thats all. And I think thats the basic feel of the game.

STALKER is a great game, true. Its setting is definitely supposed to be a more serious one than Fallout's, but in some aspects I wish Fallout 3 had been more like STALKER. I liked the difficulty and the feeling of barely scraping by with enough resources...especially at the beginning of the game.

After playing SoC I'd also hoped (before F3 was released) that Fallout 3's setting and overall mood would be similar to STALKER, only with splashes of Fallout's signature whimsy here and there. Don't get me wrong, I think the artists did a great job with Fallout 3, but it felt a little too bright, nice, and cartoony. IMO STALKER's dark, grim, bitter landscapes dotted with abandoned buildings and sickly vegetation (but some vegetation) would have given the D.C. wasteland a more authentic and dismal feeling. By contrast the retro-'50s references would have popped a little more. STALKER's setting was perhaps a little too realistic for Fallout, but if you turned the knob just a few more clicks in STALKER's direction the contrast between the humor and the desperation would have been a little more effective.

That said, STALKER could get a little dry in places and you just had to stick it out until you were in a better place. Fallout 3 was, to me, a little more consistently entertaining, but not all it could have been. I definitely think it failed in some of the ways STALKER succeeded.

The easiest way to look at this topic is this (for everyone)-

If you can do it in real life then the player could accept what the game has in terms of how intelligent(or not) the player would be to know how to get in and out of a situation.

It could be as simple a task to walk over to a stone and examine it. Pick it up. Ask the player what you want to do is far more important in making a flexible game than it is to make something only done on rails. Typically the game is not for you if you are asked what do you want to do. You have no idea wtf they are talking about lol

I'd say whats my backdrop and what the situation is. You got it ! Its Fallout; Post apocalyptic world and this is where you character is. Now the player decides whats next. Scratch yer crotch and stand in the middle of the desert like an idiot for all it matters. Eventually you get bored and go looking for stuff to do. You do it. Then you examine a tree. Take a leak on it. Get attacked by a rad scorpion. Took a few scraqes but decided you wanted to live longer and ate the scorpion instead of it eating you. 10 hours later you get tired in real life and wondered how a game you thought was boring could take up 10 hours. Congratulations. You just had fun whether or not you look at it as such. If not....what kind of idiot wastes 10 hours of their life hating something in the first place?! lol XP

Classic RPG pen and paper concepts the person looking to blow crap up will never like. No offense to these people. I like a llittle action too. But its not that kind of game.

I just don't get why some people intend on arguing something that is not demanded by anyone, which is an overly realistic game.

I'll just say it again, I'll guess - people want a game that makes sense and doesn't offend your intelligence with poorly thought-out world and pathetic humour.

"Hey, we are a bunch of immortal (though we aren't supposed to be extrordiany) kids that manage to battle 2,5-meter high super-mutants effectively and live off drinking radiated water and eating dirt! Now either you go to a raider camp located 20 days from here and rescue our kidnapped friends or we won't let you in! I know that since we can't be killed we could do it ourselves, killing everyone we meet on our way with stones and mean looks, but we were just put in the game to piss you off and provide for an excuse of gameplay design."

Being one of many examples of what I call "not being realistic". The "[censored] you! It's MAGIC!" kind of explanation get tiring after a while. Now please think a bit before posting another "We don't wanna game where you need to blink your eyes, take a piss every now and then and get killed by a radroach! We want exploding stuff and aliens and cool weapons and lulz and stuff!".

the game is retro-futuristic-post nuclear role play - nothing from that is realistic so the game shouldn't be too...

they have a version of far cry exactly like that

I'm sure there are those who DO want that, but I think that want most of us seeking more realism want is for setting and combat to make more sense compared to their RL counterparts. For example:

In FO3 combat, especially at higher difficulties, enemies can often take absurd levels of punishment compared to RL firefights, where 1-3 hits is usually enough to kill most potential targets. Now, some allowances can be made for the mutations SMs have undergone or the carapace of a Radscorpion or the armored casing of a combat robot, however in a more realistically modeled combat system many opponents would die to just a couple of shots from most weapons regardless of difficulty setting. This would apply to the PC too, who is a 'bullet sink' in his/her own right, especially at higher levels with a good build and gear.

As far as setting is concerned what some folks are looking for is for a post-apocalyptic wasteland to actually ACT like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, at least from a survivalist PoV. IOW, what they are seeking is for it to remain at least something of a struggle to keep up one's gear and supplies regardless of a given character's level or skills. Now, IMO that should only go so far (although I will try hardcoe mode to see how it plays) since after all it IS a game and I am willing to accept some concessions for playability's sake.

Yeah, I don't want game that makes me face-palm every 5-seconds, but neither want realistic game. That would be boring: u could take just couple of hits before dying, ghouls wouldn't last long, no cool laser beams, no mutants (at least that kind what exists in fallout world), no half-naked girls kickin' some heavily armed power armor guys with a chinese sword :celebration: , no tesla cannons, no power armors, no plasma guns, u couldn't carry over 300 lbs and still run.... so those naughty nightwear events are more than welcome

........why did you ressurect this thing? it was in a Coma, from what I've read people didnt get the point and or contradicted themselves, the realism sayers were speaking on the grounds of combat/survival for instance, NPC's dying from thirst yet the player didnt need water and thus did not carry any, the player being a tank vs bullet sponging NPC's

the No realism speakers relayed that realism would make the game boring, and to player various other games such as sims/sim city (lol) but then as a response Realism supporters said, you came to play fallout because it was supposedly an apocalyptic aftermath survival game, and that it was not Halo in a desert and as such some things should simply make sense, and stave off face palm syndrome.


why did I post >_>

i like feeling like i'm in the situation but i love the references such as the whale and potplant (hitchhikers guide to the galaxy) and black comedy...and doing things like exploding pants...that probs wouldn't happen in real life but it's bloody fun in fallout...go for realism..but dnt loose touch

Cursed Post Box. Strange things happened in this box in particular.

And to be honest, Fallout isn't a Post-Apocalyptic survival game. If it was, in respect to the originals, then rest assuredly, Baldurs Gate and Diablo are Sword and Sorcery Survival Games. No, they are Role-Playing games, an immersive digital game in which you control an avatar usually of your own damn creation, progressing through a series of events and storylines to get at the Big Bad Guy and save the world.
I pray most dearly that Fallout enver reaches that Sim level where the RPG in it has completely vanished, and it becomes one of those mid-to-late 90's hard-as-hell Survival Games like Robinsons Requiem.

Part of the problem is that different people mean different things when they say "realistic". And the people reading their comments also understand the word differently. For some people, they're using it to talk about setting (they dislike some of the wackier 50's sci-fi stuff), some use it to talk about game mechanics (they dislike some of the RPG mechanics vs. FPS mechanics like in Counterstrike), and others mean yet other things. This leads to lots of possibilities for miscommunication.

Which leads me to....



The problem here is that you're complaining about two different things simultaneously.

1) You don't like the combat mechanics that allow someone to attack a Power-Armored person with regular melee weapons. And, hey, that's fair. And Obsidian's apparently doing something about that with this Damage Threshold thing.

2) But then you've also got some weird sorta-anti-anime rant going with the "kiddies" and the "girls in pink dresses with japanese swords".

And that really has nothing to do with point 1. It's an aesthetics thing, not a game mechanic thing. Well, the "attacking someone in a dress" part could be part of the complaint about armor and damage mechanics, but in context with the "kiddies" and other stuff, it comes off as just an image thing. Seriously, though, I'm having a hard time connecting the Pre-War Parkstroller Outfit (is that the pink one) and a Chinese Officer sword with this odd anti-anime/anti-kiddy thing you've got going. It's quite confusing.

(I could see the anime thing if it were, say, a typical Japanese sailor dress, but it's just a 50's-style pre-war thing.)

Yeah, it annoys me when some mods for Fallout 3 adds japanese Wakizashi blades to chinese ghouls... :stare: Then again i run around the Wasteland with a gunsword from Final Fantasy XIII, so i'm not quite in a position to judge :lmao:

On topic of realism, i feel the Primary Needs, that make's your character have to eat, drink and sleep or suffer SPECIAL and skill penalties and possibly passing out for moment enhances my Fallout 3 playing experience as the it adds another layer to survivng in a post-apocalyptic wasteland aspect, however for Oblivion i don't feel the need to use such mods, because the world is still intact in that game. Pre-apocalyptic with the objective of preventing the apocalypse

It's nice to see that NV addresses this in it's hardcoe mode, but i'm not quite convinced it's "hardcoe" enough. Regardless, a Bethesda game is a good buy since you can customise it to your liking with mods. (Applies only to the PC version, of course.)

Ok, the problem here is that you're expecting an "action" game, whereas Dragon Age is meant to be a throwback to D&D games like Baldur's Gate - games that are inherently based around a pen-and-paper-style RPG system, where you decide what you want to do ("we attack that guy" or "I want my mage to cast Fireball at the Dragon") and then all the results are determined by dice rolls and the characters' skills. Not the players' skill. (Player skill comes in deciding what stats and equipment to have, and to make the decisions about tactics. The actual results are all in the dice.)

And, yeah..... if you're looking for a direct-action game, you're not going to like a "traditional" RPG.

Just because a game has fancy 3D graphics and lets you zoom in to look down over your character's shoulder, doesn't mean it's a first-person action game.


Fallout 3 is somewhere in between - it's got some things that are determined by skills and calculations, and some things that are direct-action. Which I guess can cause conflict with people who're expecting just one or the other.

I think the hardcoe mode will be satisfactory for most people (myself included) but after playing both STALKER and Metro 2033 I can see where extreme realism is fun. I'm not entirely sure if the fallout universe is the best setting for such a high degree of realism but to each his own.

realism is gona be hardcoe mode bullets weigh you need to sleep eat and drink ill probably play on hardcoe myself because A trophy B feel like a bad ass mofo on the forums.

Fallout was never intended to be realistic. I mean FGS, it derived from cult movies and comic books.

Perhaps the only thing realistic about it is the nuclear war part and the struggle to survive in the aftermath, if there are any survivors that is.

Anyone want to experience realism for free? Well then turn your computer off and go outside!

if games were realistic it would svck terribly because you'd die in one or two shots, their wouldn't be as many cool guns, and the list would be to long to fit on this page so i'll stop here. Fallout wouldn't be the same if it were realistic

Yup games would immensely svck! I bet we won't last for 5 minutes!

I'd have to agree with all this.
Except with the part about Bethesda overdoing the humor.
I don't feel they did that.
However, everything else, I agree completely.

Thanks Mr. Necromancer, you've set them off again. :facepalm: