.Pixote. said:
mavi85bmn said:
This is about realism, not convenience.
This game doesn’t even pretend to be real…imagine walking through the hot desert with 400Ibs of gear on your back, you would collapse and die within a day or so.
Even with a lower weight limit, Fallout doesn't pretend to be remotely realistic. Its very foundation is fantastical and unrealistic, as the post-apocalyptic world it's set it is not at all consistent with the effects of nuclear weapons. The land wouldn't be 99% barren decades after the blast, the radioactive fallout wouldn't affect people and animals in the way that is depicted in the game, etc. The basic premise is "what if nuclear war were anything like the irrational fears of the 1950's general populace?" There are plenty of other gameplay ideas that are patently ridiculous from a realism standpoint, too. Turn-based combat? Surviving multiple gunshot wounds to vital targets while still being able to fight? Instantly healing said gunshot wounds with an injectable drug? Choosing how your skills improve at discrete points instead of honing skills through use? There's hardly anything realistic at all about this game or most other games, and if "realism is an utmost essential matter " (Sydney), then the vast majority computer games probably aren't for you.
Adding tedious stuff from real life would make the game tedious,
especially given that the in-game clock is sped up 10 times that of reality, if I recall correctly. It would be pretty annoying to have to find someplace to sleep every 1.6-1.8 hours, drink water every few minutes, eat food every 45 minutes or so, and find a bathroom every half hour. That's not a game I'd want to play. Apparently other people would, given how popular The Sims has been. Fallout isn't The Sims, though. (Thank goodness!)
Games, just like movies and TV shows, aren't about realism, they're about fun, and
believability through internal consistency (which allows for suspension of disbelief).
Claude Frollo said:
I totally agree with this. Fallout 3 is even more unrealistic in this matter. I guess you can carry much more there.
FO3 is
different with respect to its weight limits, and they made ammo weightless (kind of a necessity since it's more of an action game, so you need access to more ammo). If you have a STR 10 character in FO3, your carry weight is 250lbs, whereas if you have a STR 10 character in FO1/2, your carry weight is 275lbs. When your STR is 8 or less, FO3's weight limit becomes higher (230 vs 225lbs), with the difference getting bigger for lower strengths. However, FO2 has two perks that'll each add 50lbs to your carry weight, and FO3 has only one (no Pack Rat perk). FO3's item weights are also different (eg, its leather armor is 15lbs, vs 8lbs in FO1/2), and since items degrade with use, players need to have more than one of each item to do repairs. You also have fewer NPCs to share the load with. All said and done, I think the carry weight in FO3 is pretty well balanced, even though it's very different from the first two games. Neither is remotely realistic in this sense, so I'm not sure that it means anything to say that FO3 is less realistic in terms of its inventory limits.
On the flip side, you get a house or apartment in FO3, in which you can store an infinite amount of stuff, making it easy to be a pack rat with frequent trips back home.