Did you all forget..

So tell me DForge. Did you find out all these flaws on your own? On your first playthrough. Cause I must admit, most of your list only becomes relevant if your actually trying to pursue those paths. I find it hard to believe that one could uncover all of that without the handy-dandy internet to tell you.
 
Hmm.

To be honest I discovered the Navarro abuse myself. Right after I reached that point, I asked myself "wtf was that armor doing in the locker" and re-started to see if I can pick it straight away..

The point-blank range miss and bulletproof eyes were obvious since the very beginning (of Fallout 1.)

And I obviously discovered the NPCs have bad AI when brain bot obliterated Vic with pancor jackhammer burst. Haven't used NPCs in Fallout 1.

Most of that stuff doesn't require players to search on gamefaqs for bugs or something, it's plain visible ;)
 
DForge said:
You're very biased, Sander. And you're fighting an impossible battle. To understand the flaws of the game and still love it is one thing, to blindly defend it against constructive criticism is another thing. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not blindly defending it against criticism and I know there are plenty of flaws. Note how I never attacked several of your points. Maybe there's a reason for that, huh?
DForge said:
And accusing me of "not knowing what Fallout is about".. if it wasn't stupid it would be funny ;) I consider leaving hi-tech stuff available for level 1 character cheap and abusive, what does it have to do with me "not understanding fallout", don't be ridiculous. Just a bad decision of the creators to leave Navarro unscripted and unprotected imho. In every game the best stuff lying in the next room to your starting one is cheap to me, and the argument "you don't have to take it" just doesn't convince me it's ok.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a great comparison right there. High-level stuff in the next room, or high-level stuff in a place you are never, ever going to find, unless you know about it before you start the game.

The reason that this is actually good thing from a Fallout standpoint is to show that the game leaves you free to do whatever you want. That's the basis of Fallout, and one of the main things where Fallout 3 fails (it constantly railroads and restricts you).

Also, if I recall correctly it was bugged and there should've been a (more difficult) check there. Not a level check, though, that'd basically make no sense.

But the idea that it's possible to get high-level equipment as a low-level character = bad game design isn't true.

For instance, in Fallout 1 it isn't that hard to get Power Armor at level 1 (although I think completing the Glow quest gets you to level 2 or 3). Does this mean it's broken?
DForge said:
Just as the argument "most people don't know about it in the first run". Ignorance is not an argument.. Just because I don't know that (hypothetic) 10 mm pistol is bugged and instantly kills everything allows me to say that the game is perfectly balanced? no.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid example, again.

The game is an RPG, it should be played as if each character is a blank slate that doesn't know these things.

DForge said:
Yeah, those 10 points refer to fallout 2 in majority (except eye shots and missing at point-blank range). Fallout 1 had different stuff (speed run in like 7 mins), however advanced power armor at least wasn't lying in a unprotected locker. (or power armor for that matter since APA was absent in F1.) I consider Fallout 1 a better game than Fallout 2 in terms of atmosphere, even if it had less lucre and stuff. It was less abusive, too.
Click to expand...
Very true.
 
But the idea that it's possible to get high-level equipment as a low-level character = bad game design isn't true.
Click to expand...

I don't want to pick on one example, but I think this is kind of bad. Do you without any training someone can actually wear that and use it effectively? If that's the case so be it, this is OK.

However I think leaving a power armour in a unprotected locker is more realistic, and still good design. It's matter of luck and as stated before in the first run finding it is a bit crazy! If you got that much of a luck that means you deserved it. I played Fallout 1 & 2 without internet or any one else to share tips. And I played in a pretty RP way, and it never was easy for me and I didn't find any shortcuts.
 
Not broken, but flawed.

But I didn't know there was supposed to be some sort of check there, and that changes things. Bugs are different stuff from a deliberately screwed gameplay because of lack of logic (or testing) of game creators.
 
APA wasn't really "lying there to be picked up" in FO2. Even assuming that you were lucky enough to get to SF without getting attacked by a strong group, you still need to be able to enter the Enclave base without sending all those tough guys in power armor after your head. If you're not playing a smooth-talker, it could be pretty hard.

"Ignorance is not an argument"... Well, assume there's no online walkthroughs for FO2. Do you get APA in the first 10 minutes of the game?
 
I have been waiting for a thread like this (mostly because I am too lazy to make one myself).

My basic feeling, and the reason I enjoy Fallout3 so much, is that it's buggy just like the originals! If it didn't have somewhat dumb conversations, mediocre AI, and some broken game mechanics, it just wouldn't feel the same to me. I actually LIKED the frustration of stupid NPCs once in a while (for the most part they were OK in F1/F2). I liked being able to shoot someone accidentally and then immediately have a cordial conversation with them. I thought all of the typos were hilarious and distinctly Falloutish (F3's version is Lucas Simms' inability to pronounce Moriarty's name correctly). So Fallout 3's flaws are tolerable to me and, though unintentionally, harken back to the originals. I realize I am probably in the extreme minority since hardcore Fallout fans want a perfect representation of their imaginations and those who haven't played it only see flaws as game-ruiners. But I take it for what it's worth... continue to use MY imagination to fill in the blanks that are lacking on-screen, and enjoy the game for what it is. I would absolutely love a serious, hyper-realistic, flawless and totally immersive Fallout game to be released. That would blow my mind. But I realized very quickly that this game wasn't going to be like that, and I adjusted my expectations accordingly.

In short, the game is flawed like its predecessors, which in my opinion makes it Fallout. It's like a caricature of a serious RPG. This includes flaws in gameplay mechanics, writing, and everything else. I do agree that it has shortcomings even when compared to F1 and F2 (mostly relating to plotlines and quests), but I blame that more on trying to accommodate the audience's lack of attention than anything else.
 
That is a really interesting POV Speebs. Never looked at it that way before. Personally, I still disagree with you, but at least you have a decent reason to like the game. :)
 
Speebs said:
In short, the game is flawed like its predecessors, which in my opinion makes it Fallout. It's like a caricature of a serious RPG. This includes flaws in gameplay mechanics, writing, and everything else. I do agree that it has shortcomings even when compared to F1 and F2 (mostly relating to plotlines and quests), but I blame that more on trying to accommodate the audience's lack of attention than anything else.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to say "Beth has contributed to the Fallout spirit, not only because it kept the original flaws, but because it multiplied them" /facepalm

And, if it is supposed to be a caricature of a serious RPG, then Beth is doing it WRONG. Thus far I have only laughed at stupidity of the game, and haven't noticed any humour. Smart jokes got replaced by slapstick. It's like a cinema that says "we forgot where we put that classic comedy, so please watch Anchorman for your money instead".
 
Ausdoerrt said:
I was waiting for someone to say "Beth has contributed to the Fallout spirit, not only because it kept the original flaws, but because it multiplied them" /facepalm
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I did not mention Bethesda anywhere in the post. The game is out and it's what it is. I'm explaining why I, personally, am able to enjoy it.

Ausdoerrt said:
]
And, if it is supposed to be a caricature of a serious RPG, then Beth is doing it WRONG. Thus far I have only laughed at stupidity of the game, and haven't noticed any humour. Smart jokes got replaced by slapstick. It's like a cinema that says "we forgot where we put that classic comedy, so please watch Anchorman for your money instead".
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The humor sucks if it exists at all in this game. This is one of the reasons Fallout 3 seems dumbed down compared to F1 and F2.
 
Whee, a whole "you shouldn't complain that it's bad, because the previous games were bad too" thread.
 
So far, my favorite thing about F3 is that all the skills and abilities and perks are/can be very useful to a particular character. The SPECIAL system has seen a lot of changes since F2, but I really like the changes. I can truly make any kind of character I want now, without the game mechanics making certain aspects of that character useless. F1/F2 were great for their time, but were lacking in proper character dynamics. The only thing that the older games have that I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see in F3 would be the inclusion of the "stupid" game. If someone mods in a game for low intelligence neadrathals, I'll be in heaven.
 
chaosapiant said:
So far, my favorite thing about F3 is that all the skills and abilities and perks are/can be very useful to a particular character. The SPECIAL system has seen a lot of changes since F2, but I really like the changes. I can truly make any kind of character I want now, without the game mechanics making certain aspects of that character useless. F1/F2 were great for their time, but were lacking in proper character dynamics. The only thing that the older games have that I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see in F3 would be the inclusion of the "stupid" game. If someone mods in a game for low intelligence neadrathals, I'll be in heaven.
Click to expand...
Yes, you went from a game that rewarded/punished certain choices to a game where choices in character design don't matter at all!
 
Yes, so unlike the old games, you can now do everything. Thats right, no more playing through the game twice. (cept for moral decisions and missed lockpicks and science)
This is an improvement how?
 
To be clear, both character systems in F1/F2 and the newer F3 have their flaws. F1/F2 punished the user for getting too creative. Gambling, Outdoorsman, First Aid when Doctor was available and so on, were useless skills. They weren't useless by themselves, they were useless because the game mechanics didn't take full advantage of them. In F3, yes you can make a character that is good at everything. But you don't have too. You can specialize much easier without being punished for not using other skills. In my opinion, F3 manages to do character-wise what F1/F2 wanted to do, but didn't have the time/budget/resources to make viable.
 
My favourite part about the new SPECIAL system is how:

Charisma means nothing.
Luck means nothing.
Endurance means next to nothing.
Strength means next to nothing.

So, in character creation, just crank stats into Perception / Intelligence and Agility, and you'll own face, get ALL dialogue and quest options, and 100% the game in one playthrough (good AND bad, as you can reset the "karma" system after three days).

This "improvment" makes me happy. Who really wants to play a game more than once these days?

:roll:
 
But but but but, if you not evil bounty hunters wont attack you! and and and if your not good, raiders wont constantly come after you!!
talk about replayability eh?
 
At this point, we are talking system abuse. All the games in the series could be exploited for system abuse and uber characteres. I am not talking about that at all. I LOVE the character creation system in all three games. That being said, I feel like in F3 I can make a more unique character that I can in F1/F2. Sure, in F2 I could make an alcoholic/abusive gambler, but what did it really mean? That I'd spend the whole game in New Reno? As I said, the first games had the options, but didn't have the gameplay to back them up. I'm already planning my 2nd charcter in F3 to be a female evil character, with a love for fire. I'm sort of picturing a female version of the Joker/pyromaniac.
 
DForge said:
I also think F3 should have never become a FPS, but come on. The previous Fallouts weren't flawless in game mechanics. Why do you all suddenly forgot about it? It's called bias, you know. ;)
Click to expand...
No, we didn't forget actually, when I meet other Fallout fans we usually spend 10 minutes talking about how Fallout is great and then half a hour bashing it :P .

Actually, it makes the F3 thing even worse, because now we know that Fallout series will never be improved, because of the sub-genre shift.

On the other hand, a lot of the things you are talking about are meta-gaming problems (which are players-side problems), not errors in game. If someone wants to spoil their fun by doing no roleplaying and going to Navarro at start, it's their problem - RPGs are about roleplaying not about "winning" game.

On the other hand, the authors partially encouraged such behaviour by writing in manuals that players should SFL through the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top