Sorry thats where you loost me. I seriously doubt that you played the game ...Herr Mike said:
Fallout 2 & 3 side by side comparison
- Thread starter BurningInFlames
- Start date
big brother said:
Again, at least one terminal in the game has said that farming has existed in the area. They fell victim to Raiders or Slavers or whatever. Its up near Canterburry Commons in fact. Why OTHERS don't have farming is a mystery, sure.
Also, there's the Canterburry Commons trade between towns too. Paradise Falls slavers also are supposed to trade with the Pitt I believe, but that's never shown in-game. The traderoute between Canterburry and other areas isn't too dangerous from what I've seen either, subject to the worst when heading to Rivet City I think. Considering the distance between each settlement isn't more than a day too, requiring fewer guards and the like is okay. Fallout 1 and 2, trade happened between days worth of travel.
Traders don't offer you food of course, but that doesn't mean they don't carry it. Why would a random person get to buy goods that another is already contracted to receive? Also, another thing not shown is the Scavengers dealing with towns either, but it is mentioned that they do.
TheMutantMe
First time out of the vault
What kind of trade can there be with Canterburry Commons? There's only four people living there!
Yazman
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Rev. Layle said:
**Rev. Layle: this post is not directed at you as I realise you're ok with the setting.. just wanted to clear that up**
Besides the fact that there's no such thing as "realism for a post-apoc world" and that a lot of people's views of what is realistic is extremely short sighted, Fallout 3 takes place only a matter of years after number 2 and so any criticisms there are really over Fallout 2 and 3 together.
But yeah I think many people's criticisms are very short sighted.. like how people say "they should be more developed after 200 years" but the fact is, development can be retarded or boosted greatly by MANY factors and it is not only logical but realistic to see poor, undeveloped communities in close proximity to advanced, developed ones even after hundreds of years.
Time doesn't necessarily mean your culture or society will develop technologically, economically, or socially. The world today experiences vastly different levels of development and some regions have remained static after extremely long periods of time.. Much of east africa is extremely undeveloped in the years since there were somewhat "apocalyptic" collapses in society and economy, yet the same did not happen for asian cultures that experienced this.
The argument that "people should be more developed" is quite ridiculous really.. as if 200 years makes a difference? The Mayans experienced an "apocalyptic" end to their civilization over a thousand years ago and never returned to previous levels of technology.. Hell, the Australian Aborigines experienced only minor changes in economy and technology over a span of 40,000 years! This took place in a world that NEVER had much of the entire planet reduced to a smoldering nuclear heap!
If a society can exist without drastic changes in economy and technology for 40,000 years, what makes you think that people in a post-nuclear holocaust America would quickly advance?
Yazman said:
Because, uh, they are living on the ruins of an old civilization, with some technology still salvagable? Because they can see how advanced their ancestors were? Because their grandparents and parents taught them about technology? It's much easier to re-discover something than to invent it yourself you know, so people leaving in the ass off nowhere, who has never seen a car are not a good example of a post-apocalyptic society.
I don't understand how the fact that this is a ficitonal setting justifies the lack of coherency and sense in the game's world. Pardon me, but it DOES suppose to resemble our world with slight changes to physics and history and as far as I can tell, you need to eat in order to survive. I don't need a dynamic simulation of crops' growth, but instead a farm here, a garden there or a slaughterhouse from time to time to make the world feel real. Right now playing the game is a one big facepalm.
I also don't understand how could Bethesda spend 4 years on making this game and yet still it feels so empty and half-assed - there's almost no attention to details (especially in quest design), lack of interactions between settlements (it's like they don't know about each other at all), gamebalance is shit, as is the main story, there are few enemies, shit dialogue and VO....you're telling me that I'm *unfair* in jugding the game? Please, I approached it unbiased and optimistic, but the game simply proved not worthy of either it's name or the scores it gets from the reviews. So don't tell me how short-sighted I am, because you don't seem to get some facts yourself.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
Ravager69 said:
Thats not necessarily true. I could have said Europe stood upon the ruins of the technological marvel that were the romans, for a good 16 centuries before it came back to the same level. There were advances here and there, but not as say 'homogenous' as the romans had been.
Although I do agree with what you are saying, I would have expected a lot more in Washington DC 200 years after a nuclear war, especially in 2077.
My biggest gripe with the game is the lack of farming and cohesiveness between 'towns', the fact these towns resemble more English cottages in rural areas with a pub and some 4 houses and 10 inhabitants than they do 'Towns'.
Also, saying farms were attacked by slavers/raiders is not a good enough excuse to explain their absence. What, do they not eat too? Will they not want to make a profit exporting surplus food?
The maximum that occurs is ownership change, the actual farm would not be destroyed because it is so valuable.
Ravager69 said:
Man's still gotta eat! There were chicken farms in Warcraft!
They could AT LEAST have put "rat meat" on the rat corpses.
I'm not talking about 5 of something costing less than 10 of something. I'm saying there is no demand outside of what YOU need to shoot people in the eyeballs, and price is hardcoded. So there is nothing like an economic system!
Yeah you see caravans and can work on them and so forth, but the scale of the previous games are much larger than in Fallout 3, and there are bigger population centers. They could have given caravans a bigger role, but they ARE there.
That's not to say I wouldn't have liked to see more economic stuff. I think a big trading center would have been interesting, and taking caravan jobs would have been a nice option. But I don't think the lack of it causes the fabric of the game to unravel. Putting in a working economy would be a game in itself. I don't expect that.
I see Fallout as a fantasy world just like PT. Certain things are believable and certain things take some imagination.
And really, it's not difficult at all to imagine farms somewhere. The fact that people are alive implies they have food to eat. Maybe 10 feet off the side of the map there is giant field of organic acorn squash. I don't know. I don't care. I don't like acorn squash.
big brother said:
A few brahmins cant support a entire settlement even if its populated by only a half dozen of people. In a small number cows are used to produce dairy products not meat and you cant live on milk and cheese.
big brother said:
Since majority of people have trouble fending cockroaches i doubt that hunting Mirelurks is a good alternative to farming, well any kind of hunting is not too good of a alternative to farming.
big brother said:
You mean that one mule caravan is supposed to supply food to entire region, and since no one is growing anything where do they get their food supply.
big brother said:
Every climate can support more then one edible plant, for example potatoes which are easy to grown and dont need much care can be planted almost anywhere. Is it really far fetched to have renewable food source.
big brother said:
I am not nitpicking a perfect game but discussing one of many flaws of the game. Farms would make F3 look more realistic and consistent to the original, so I think it would be a good thing to have them in the game.
big brother said:
You like majority are happy with F3 and you think that F4 will be even better. Why would they make a better game with better story, dialogs, world design, balance, combat or c&c, when to majority the game is just perfect with few small flaws. Even when Bethesda admits that they knew their main story is s*** and they didnt care fanboys always come to defense. Only way to make F4 a better game is by criticizing and not defending bad game features.
nemetoad said:
Raiders and Slavers need to eat, so its not logical for them to destroy the farms.
nemetoad said:
From where comes the food that is traded, a settlement cant survive for 200 years with food from a lone one mule trader and scavengers. Since the wasteland is filled with mutants, beasts and raiders that kind of supply is not reliable.
Ravager69 said:
It's not that simple. Look at the fall of Rome. Western civilization was reduced to feudalism for 1000 years. And that's without nuclear bombs and mutated monsters.
It's hard to say what would really happen. You have complete destruction of all population centers, which would totally destroy any advanced economy and infrastructure. There would be no food so anyone left alive after the bombs would have to leave. But the countryside is still full of people. Pandemonium. Could go on for years.
Things would stabilize after a time, who knows how long. But stabilization might be even more brutal, because then you'd get the tribalism.
So play another game, fer crissakes. Type up a post saying that everything in this game is irredeemable shit, and request it be stickied so that we can access it when we want to read about how shit this game is.
The conditions of the world are like that of the midwest dustbowl now with less rain. Farming is a terrible thing to rely on anyways. Unless you have the right seeds and know what you're doing, farming would fail miserably. If you want an example, then fine: Fallout 2. Arroyo. You're own tribe based it's food off farming and eventually started dying. Hunting is probably what kept them alive, afterall.
Also, it's like.... 5 caravans. with huge packs on their backs.
Also, Raiders and Slavers need to eat, so it is logical to capture or kill farmers. Farmers become slaves and thus become profit to buy food at the Pitt or from traders, depending on if they're bought. As far as Raiders go, Farmers are a source of food. Their products are, at least.
As far as I'm concerned, trade's more reliable in an area that's based in a major city's ruins. From a city comes lots to trade and many places to get it without getting into mutants, beasts, raiders, etc. Also, Mutants, Beasts, Raiders are all threats to FARMING considering all three seem bent on rape and pillage. Farming is also unreliable for a settlement to survive for 200 years... Megaton is the only one mentioned to have been around that long, next being the Underworld. In truth, there's no good explanation for how all of these places survived for how long.
Another thing to consider is Junktown and how it survived.. ON TRADE. Hub had crops, but based lots of income on trade as well. And this was trade with large distances, taking days to happen. Again, Fallout 3 doesn't show any outward connects, but considering some were mentioned It's not illogical to believe they exist. Maybe they were severed recently, who knows?
Also, hunting IS a better alternative. Why do you think native Americans survived so long before discovering farming skills? Is that stupid too?
And Brahmin can support a small settlement, partially at least. Combined with trade too
and scavenging!
Also, it's like.... 5 caravans. with huge packs on their backs.
Also, Raiders and Slavers need to eat, so it is logical to capture or kill farmers. Farmers become slaves and thus become profit to buy food at the Pitt or from traders, depending on if they're bought. As far as Raiders go, Farmers are a source of food. Their products are, at least.
As far as I'm concerned, trade's more reliable in an area that's based in a major city's ruins. From a city comes lots to trade and many places to get it without getting into mutants, beasts, raiders, etc. Also, Mutants, Beasts, Raiders are all threats to FARMING considering all three seem bent on rape and pillage. Farming is also unreliable for a settlement to survive for 200 years... Megaton is the only one mentioned to have been around that long, next being the Underworld. In truth, there's no good explanation for how all of these places survived for how long.
Another thing to consider is Junktown and how it survived.. ON TRADE. Hub had crops, but based lots of income on trade as well. And this was trade with large distances, taking days to happen. Again, Fallout 3 doesn't show any outward connects, but considering some were mentioned It's not illogical to believe they exist. Maybe they were severed recently, who knows?
Also, hunting IS a better alternative. Why do you think native Americans survived so long before discovering farming skills? Is that stupid too?
And Brahmin can support a small settlement, partially at least. Combined with trade too
and scavenging!Herr Mike said:
We have previous games for a base - there are pretty big settlements, humanity is crawling back on the top of the foodchain, people live their lives somehow. Bethesda simply does not care if their world is plausible or not - they'll put a lot of eye-candy and exploding heads, mixed with some toilet humor and rejoice! Fallout at it best. Come on, if you want the game to be better, constructive criticism is what you need to do and such flaws need to be pointed out and removed. If people will show that they do not care about such things, then trust me, in the next game it'll get worse.
Herr Mike said:
Then discuss in another thread for crissakes. If you can't handle the fact that people have drastically diffrent opinion than yours, go to hell and stop bothering me. I aim to prove my point, not adhere to your taste, so if you don't like it then it's not my problem. Either give me some arguments that will prove you are right, not me, or don't at all.
"Previous games" is only good for overall history though... What, because the West is massively developed the rest of the world should be too? East Coast can be underdeveloped. After all, because we have skyscrappers in New York City, does that mean there's those in every city? Nope. And also, Fallout 3 takes place in a small area...to see too much diveristy between high tech city to scrap metal sheds is... well, more unplausible then what was given.
Besides, Vault City, NCR, etc. only got to where they were via GECKs or Brotherhood assistance. GECKS were believed to be a shoot-miss as far as they "should" work correctly and there is no indication of a Brotherhood-like force on the East Coast. Chances are the East Coast could be in a state of disorder for much longer because they don't have the jumpstart tools that the West did.
I do agree that constructive critisism needs to be given of course. However, putting it in a thread is...well, not the best of ideas.
Besides, Vault City, NCR, etc. only got to where they were via GECKs or Brotherhood assistance. GECKS were believed to be a shoot-miss as far as they "should" work correctly and there is no indication of a Brotherhood-like force on the East Coast. Chances are the East Coast could be in a state of disorder for much longer because they don't have the jumpstart tools that the West did.
I do agree that constructive critisism needs to be given of course. However, putting it in a thread is...well, not the best of ideas.
anyone who is comparing ancient history and evolution of technology like what happend to europe after the fall of the romen empire (which in infact was fallen a "few" times apart not just one single time) is not really looking very profesional in history. And is also missing some point. Fallout is not based on a event of culturs which evolved literaly with time differences from thousand of years. I mean aprox 8000 years in the past the Ägypter and Mesopotamian cultures (Sumer,Akkadian and Babylonian and Assyrian) had started to evolve in culturs and empires when in europe people still keept crashing their skulls with each other.
People think that things were homogeneous, only cause europe seen a dark age after the roman culture doesnt mean the rest of the world was that way.
By the way, its really not advicable to search for something like that in Fallout. The franchise gets somewhat its appeal by exactly this isolated wasteland feeling were you have technologicaly very advanced communities right next to almost tribes if you want so.
People think that things were homogeneous, only cause europe seen a dark age after the roman culture doesnt mean the rest of the world was that way.
By the way, its really not advicable to search for something like that in Fallout. The franchise gets somewhat its appeal by exactly this isolated wasteland feeling were you have technologicaly very advanced communities right next to almost tribes if you want so.
nemetoad said:...This coming from the person who says "if you want the game to be better, constructive criticism is what you need to do and such flaws need to be pointed out and removed." Nice constructive critisism
Well, I like to be an asshole from time to time
Besides, I do meant what I said and it is true.Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
nemetoad said:
Disagree. Fallout 3 has a area too small and you stumble upon homicidal raiders every moment. In Fallout 1 and 2, the wasteland was truly desolated, and you could go on without finding enemies for days or even weaks.
Ravager69 said:
Which is a problem with the game engine and the Outdoorsman skill. Does it excuse Fallout 3 from creating the same mistake? Fallout 2 made the assumption that people would put points into the skill and when they didn't it broke part of the illusion of a desolate wasteland.
You can explain away alot of Fallout 3's faults with pages & pages of text. Except they are following the show not tell school of thought. Who needs great dialog or plenty of backstory when you can see the wasteland? Oh wait that means we should be able to see all of those farms & traders when we wander around.
This is what happens when you don't have a design plan from the start or alot of play testing.