27 Things About Fallout 3... and then some.

[Sander]

I'm not trying to provoke anyone, honest injun. I was just making an observation.

Just because there weren't any functional cars (besides yours in 2) in the area you explored in the first two games, that doesn't mean there aren't any functional or half-functional cars anywhere.

It means that functional cars are not going to be around a lot.

And it's not like Bethesda is putting exploding cars every 20 feet in the game. There'll probably be an explodable car or two occasionally dotting the landscape, but not a whole garage full of them. Hell, there might be piles of unexplodable stipped car chassises (or however the plural of chassis is spelt) all over, and only like 10 explodable cars in the entire game. Hell, there could even be a 360 achievement for exploding them all (and yes, I'll be playing the 360 version, as my PC is basically a 5 year old glorified calculator). That would rule.

Go-go baseless assumptions.

On FO3 being a shitty Fallout game: what, exactly makes a fallout game?

This does. The essence of Fallout is P&P gaming.

That's probably something you folks have been arguing about since the game was announced, but here's what I think of when I think Fallout. I think of exploring a bleak, desolate wasteland dotted with the occasional settlement or village. I think of a distinct visual style that mixes 50's era charm with cruel, brutal reality. I think of making choices that have an impact not just for you and your allies, but for the town you're in and even the world in general. I think of killing a great mighty fuckload of giant scorpions, slavers, raiders, deathclaws, mutants, and anything else the wasteland can throw at me. I think of a game that doesn't take itself so seriously that it can't go "oh, to hell with continuity" for a second so it can throw me into a special encounter with a teleporting phone booth or a crashed Star Trek shuttle. If FO3 can deliver those things while being a fun game to play, well, then it'll be a good Fallout game. It doesn't have to be isometric or turn-based or mention Vault 13 or even have anything to do at all with the previous two games. It doesn't even have to take place in the same universe as the fallout canon. If a game came out with all the above aspects and was called "Annihilation: The Fall" and was made by Ubisoft, it'd be a good Fallout game.

It's all just 'opeeeenions'. I'm sorry, but they aren't. What consitutes a fun game is one thing, but what constitutes an actual Fallout game is very well defined. By the original designers themselves, no less.

EDIT: P-Funk, stop double posting.

 

[Brother None]

Go-go baseless assumptions.

Actually, one of the preview/interviews noted the explodable cars aren't everywhere on every map. They're fairly uncommon, though not much specified how uncommon.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

On power armor not exploding: power armor was designed to withstand armed combat. It's reasonable to assume that the power core for power armor is much better protected than a highwayman designed mostly for cruising, well, the highways. Hell, you probably need fusion-powered cutting tools just to swap out the battery. Which might explain why each one has 85 years of use in it.

EDIT: That article you linked to reads basically like a design doc for the original Fallout, not a holy bible on what every fallout game ever has to be now and forever, amen.

 

[Black]

On power armor not exploding: power armor was designed to withstand armed combat. It's reasonable to assume that the power core for power armor is much better protected than a highwayman designed mostly for cruising, well, the highways. Hell, you probably need fusion-powered cutting tools just to swap out the battery. Which might explain why each one has 85 years of use in it.

...
So close, you're so close!
Isn't it reasonable to assume that if fusion-cells can be safe, then there would be safe fusion-powered cars? Maybe I'm really an idiot but I think if they could avoid mini-nuclear explosions, because other people don't know how to drive, they would avoid it, thus making SAFE fusion-powered cars, that don't blow up even when crashed or shot!

 

[Sander]

EDIT: That article you linked to reads basically like a design doc for the original Fallout, not a holy bible on what every fallout game ever has to be now and forever, amen.

It's the core design of Fallout. If sequels don't need to adhere to the bleeding *core design* I don't know what they *do* need to adhere to. Just your arbitrary opinions on what constitutes the core of Fallout, instead of what the designers have delineated to be the core of Fallout?

 

[PhoenixUltima]

Fallout wasn't good because of its core game design. It was good because it was fun, and because it let you explore a vast wasteland teeming with nasty critters and all sorts of different characters. Fallout very well could have been a sandbox-style run and gun FPS and it still would have been good. The game's design was just how the developers decided to make their game, and although it worked (a few glitches aside), it wasn't essential to making a fun game about a post-holocaust world.

 

[P-Funk]

I'm telling you why it is major.
You couldn't shoot cars in Fallout 1 + 2, but you *could* shoot people in Power Armour, which are powered by fusion generators. Ever see them explode?


Wrong. in 50's Science! Fusion power is safe, clean and reliable. Exploding fusion cells go directly against that.
Moreover constant nuclear explosions violate the very spirit of Fallout, that nuclear weapons are world changing things. They destroyed the world. Then they saved it twice. Whatever their role, they made history.
Fallout 3 has no such respect for this power. We have nukular catapults, exploding nuclear cars and players detonating nuclear warheads for money.

I know fusion power doesn't explode, I work in the nuclear industry. That is why I threw in the bit about the scientists. I'll clarify: If the prediction of the future is from a scientists perspective, then yes, it is inaccurate. If it is from the perspective of a 50's joe, or a 50's science fiction writer, it is fine. But, to me the point is minor, except for the gameplay. That is what I tried to say in my post, though I admit I was vague on it. But it means you are agreeing with me on that end.

Though you are right, the flippant use of nukes does violate the spirit of fallout. Once again, though, if that is my biggest complaint, I'll be SOO happy.

 

[Black]

Did you like Fallout?
If yes, then you liked a computer game that emulates P&P rpgs set in post-apo USA.
Fallout is Fallout, it's not bloody fps,
Fallout was fun because, well, it was Fallout.

Fallout wasn't good because of its core game design.

I've got something better, look.
Fallout was good because of its core game design.

 

[Sander]

Fallout wasn't good because of its core game design.

Ah yes, the design doesn't matter. Because...erm....what? What the fuck are you talking about? How does the design not matter?

It was good because it was fun, and because it let you explore a vast wasteland teeming with nasty critters and all sorts of different characters.

You have clearly, very obviously, missed what Fallout was actually about. You're making it sound like a fucking post-apocalyptic dungeon crawl and all that matter was that you get to toy around with a desert.

Fallout very well could have been a sandbox-style run and gun FPS and it still would have been good.

However, it wasn't. It was something very, essentially different. It could've been a sports game and still very good. That's not the point.

The game's design was just how the developers decided to make their game, and although it worked (a few glitches aside), it wasn't essential to making a fun game about a post-holocaust world.

Egad. You do realise that Fallout was *not* built around the setting, don't you? The P&P emulation came *first*, the setting came second. Hell, at some point it was going to be a medieval game. The very *essence* of Fallout is the P&P emulation. It wasn't just a means to an end, it was the actual core of Fallout.

 

[xdarkyrex]

wow this thread got all long and serious.

I was having fun with it before...

Continuity is irrelevant?
New canon? Hey if they added faeries, magic powers and laser swords that'd be "new canon" too. But would it follow continuity and "be" Fallout? Hell no.

Continuity is fine, but adding in new features is not a matter of continuity if it doesn't affect the old features.

If we wanted everything to be continuous 100%, we wouldn't want a Fallout 3 at all, we'd want a Fallout 1 part 2.

 

[Vault 69er]

On power armor not exploding: power armor was designed to withstand armed combat. It's reasonable to assume that the power core for power armor is much better protected than a highwayman designed mostly for cruising, well, the highways. Hell, you probably need fusion-powered cutting tools just to swap out the battery. Which might explain why each one has 85 years of use in it.

That explanation is immediately rendered void by the fact that the Highwayman in Fallout 2 used the exact same power source as military grade ray guns.

Continuity is fine, but adding in new features is not a matter of continuity if it doesn't affect the old features.

If we wanted everything to be continuous 100%, we wouldn't want a Fallout 3 at all, we'd want a Fallout 1 part 2.

It does affect the old features. It's also unecesarry.
And don't give me the "car explosions are fun!" argument. That's entirely relative. I for one don't consider it fun or cool. I got my fill of cars going up in nuclear fireballs back when I played Die Hard Trilogy in 1996.
Exploding cars violating continuity on the other hand is a bonafide fact and not relative at all.

As for "new features" yes, Bethesda has the right to be creative.
Too bad they're not. Look, it's the BoS yet again. Oh hey, the Super Mutants are antagonists again! OH LOOK TEH ENCLAVE'S BACK LULZ!
Where's the originality here?

 

[quietfanatic]

These mini-mushroom cloud nuclear explosions are most foolish, for many reasons mentioned here and elsewhere. It is one of those things that many people will immediately say is stupid. It is not a wise thing to do with something with such symbolic importance for a sequel to Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game. It screams superficiality, ignorance and is in terribly bad-taste, presumably targeting a stereotypical teen FPS player who doesn't care about depth, but more about instant gratification.

If it was implemented similarly in the original Fallout I would still object to it, although that sort of hypothetical stuff isn't very useful, as if the devs put in such stupid stuff as that, or say, making you gain an AC bonus of a zillion on ducking and covering, they would likely screw up many other parts of the setting and game mechanics, which would thus be inferior, as shallow, simple mindedness would not be conducive to quality. Then I probably wouldn't be here right now.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

Sander: I think this is the point where you and I simply have to agree to disagree. We obviously have very different views of what a Fallout game should be, and my experience tells me neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

I'll say this, though: FO3 is looking to be pretty fun, and a fun game is always a treat, Fallout or no. Even if the game doesn't manage to capture the Fallout spirit, when it comes out you should at least try to enjoy the game for what it is, provided the core game is good.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

That explanation is immediately rendered void by the fact that the Highwayman in Fallout 2 used the exact same power source as military grade ray guns.

Guns need to be designed so that ammo clips (or in this case, fusion batteries) can be swapped out when they run dry. You very well couldn't make the things out of 5 inches of heavy steel, or carbonite, or whatever they used in those games. And there's also the fact that energy weapons actually can explode on you if you're unlucky enough to take a critical miss. That kind of throws the whole "fusion cells can't explode" bit right out.

 

[Sander]

Sander: I think this is the point where you and I simply have to agree to disagree. We obviously have very different views of what a Fallout game should be, and my experience tells me neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

I'll just finish by stating that one of us *does* have objective facts supporting him, and the other doesn't.

I'll say this, though: FO3 is looking to be pretty fun, and a fun game is always a treat, Fallout or no. Even if the game doesn't manage to capture the Fallout spirit, when it comes out you should at least try to enjoy the game for what it is, provided the core game is good.

Maybe. But we're not saying it'll be a shitty game. Again, we're pissed that it's going to be a shitty Fallout game.

 

[Vault 69er]

Guns need to be designed so that ammo clips (or in this case, fusion batteries) can be swapped out when they run dry. You very well couldn't make the things out of 5 inches of heavy steel, or carbonite, or whatever they used in those games.

So what? They're obviously stable as they don't explode when you're hit. And the car uses the same exact ones.

And there's also the fact that energy weapons actually can explode on you if you're unlucky enough to take a critical miss. That kind of throws the whole "fusion cells can't explode" bit right out.

Do they erupt into nuclear explosions? No? Then that's completely irrelevant.

 

[Seraphim Pwns U]

The OP needs a lot of work, and trying to emulate the Fo:BoS article doesn't make sense at this point.

I'll admit it does need a lot of work, but I was extremely tired when I wrote that.

As to trying to emulate the old 27 things... I felt inspired to write down what I felt was wrong with FO3 at this point in time, in my own personal opinion. (I was originally reading the FOBOS forum simply to learn more about its utter suckage [I hate being uninformed]). It was pure coincidence that I came up with 27 things- my goal, in all honesty, was a lot higher.

@ Ausir- There's many names 'the residents'/the devs could've picked... for example: Nuke, Warhead (a good choice, imho), and Payload, for starters. Plop any one of the suffixes for its type of community for more variety. 'Megaton' when used as a city's name, is structurally akin to 'Charleston'... and 'Charleston' does not mean 'the equivalent of 2,000 pounds worth of King Charles'. Sure, it might be mere quibbling, but it's as weird (if nothing else, to a logophiliac like myself) as using a double negative or paradoxical sentence structure.

 

[PhoenixUltima]

Actually, according to Game Informer magazine Megaton is named because there's a big-ass nuke sitting in the center of town.

 

[P-Funk]

Exploding cars violating continuity on the other hand is a bonafide fact and not relative at all.

What I am saying is it is a relatively minor continuity issue. It does not invalidate Fallout entirely in and of itself. We should be more worried about bigger things. My biggest concern is this: Am I forced to save my father? What if I didn't like the fucker? I want to be able to kill children, but the ESRB was not what it is today in 1997-8. If the entire plot completely invalidates everything to date, that would concern me. But they would almost have to go out of their way to, as it is on the opposite coast. The BoS on the East Coast is weird, but who knows how big they were. Cars didn't blow up in past games, but I think the cars not being stripped for parts is a bigger violation than the actual explosion. (which I guess means I agree with you for different reasons.)

Honestly what bothers me is the FPS aspect, and yes, exploding cars does increase the odds of this being a twitchfest.

So I disagree with exploding cars, but NOT because they didn't explode in past games.

 

[Black]

We should be more worried about bigger things.

Like if there will be isometric view and turn-based combat? Oh, wait...