Fallout 3 at PAX: GayGamer and That VideoGame Blog

[UncannyGarlic]

I recognize the danger of sacrificing depth and longevity in favor of making everything available all at once, and I don't want that at all - I just think there are problems with taking more than one play-through for granted.

If there are, I'm not seeing them: what's the problem here exactly? You made choices, so you missed the Ghost Farm. I'll admit illogical consequences suck and should always be avoided, but neither should a pen and paper emulating game ever pander to the audience like that. It doesn't matter if you won't see everything. Heck, it's not the game's intention that you see everything. You make choices and they lock off parts of the game, and open up other parts. That's just the genre we're talking about here, and if that's not to your tastes then it's not to your tastes, but that hardly makes it wrong to be that harsh to players.

It certainly makes no sense to take "player must have (easy) access to all parts of the game (in a single playthrough)" a design intent for a game like Fallout. The whole point of such games is that they challenge you to be imaginative and find your own way and try to adapt as best as they can. They'll screw up every now and again and that sucks, but the intent is good, and it should be perfected in sequels, not abandoned.

You might as well start asking Hitman to stop taxing the player's imagination and instead offer simple, one-option-per-mission ways to finish things.

Indeed. I am a perfectionist and completist when it comes to many games, western CRPGs just happen to be one of those genres that being able to complete everything (or having only the good, do nothing, and chaotic stupid path - separate issue) is not something that's desirable. I play most JRPGs these days with a walkthrough because they are too long and tend to have stupidly hidden content (FFXII's Zodiac Spear being the king) that is neigh impossible to get without a walkthrough. They are also linear games designed in a manner so that you can complete everything and that additional playthroughs will not be much different (there a handful of exceptions). I hardly have time to make it through a 100 hour game once, let alone twice so I like to get everything. All in all, JRPGs are getting more and more in need of game design police to just go in and throw out half of their content (most every mini-game, stupidly hidden content [Zodiac Spear], uncercumventable random encounters, poorly designed side-quests tacked on for more gameplay, ect.).

That said there are some things in Fallout that always bugged the hell out of me, the number one being able to steal from anyone with any level in steal. It drives the OCD part of me insane and eats up a lot of not-fun time, but time that I'm compelled to spend. But what's fun about western CRPGs for me is similar to what's fun about adventure games, trying stuff out and figuring things out. Granted adventure games are all too commonly linear but it's fun to just go with the game knowing that I was never intended to get everything. It's about doing stuff and seeing what happens (not to say that it prevented me from quickloading like mad - it was upfront and pushy about the importance of saving).

Now we come to the important question, did any Fallout games take multiple playthroughs to be fun? I never thought so and I still haven't done everything in either game. If you really want to see everything that you missed them youtube is bound to have videos of it all so you can view all of the content you missed later at your own pace. It isn't the same as playing through it but I find that it satisfies the OCD twinge (never had it for CRPGs though). As BN said, if you can't have fun with that type of game then it's probably not a type you enjoy.

 

[eff-out]

If there are, I'm not seeing them: what's the problem here exactly?

My point is this: When you read the Fallout walk-through it's full of things like "You'll only get this dialogue option once so make sure you have already x'd or y'd". When these situations can needlessly block off chunks of a game on likely the only time I'll ever play it fully through, that is a problem. I'm not talking about "If you do x you obviously can't do y, so make an informed decision" I'm talking about uncontrollable situations like talking to townspeople in the wrong order effing up quests for no good reason.

So I can understand where Pete's coming from when he talks about second chances. I also like the idea of being able to edit your character again after you play through the first dungeon. I know, heresy. I think Bethesda understands their core demo, and it is me.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

If there are, I'm not seeing them: what's the problem here exactly?

My point is this: When you read the Fallout walk-through it's full of things like "You'll only get this dialogue option once so make sure you have already x'd or y'd". When these situations can needlessly block off chunks of a game on likely the only time I'll ever play it fully through, that is a problem. I'm not talking about "If you do x you obviously can't do y, so make an informed decision" I'm talking about uncontrollable situations like talking to townspeople in the wrong order effing up quests for no good reason.

I don't remember any quests like that. Example?

 

[Brother None]

So I can understand where Pete's coming from when he talks about second chances.

I don't think that's what Pete's talking about at all.

What you're talking about is unclear communication with the player and sloppy design in choice and consequence. I can't say I recall a lot of that being in Fallout, but I do agree that it is something to be avoided when structuring a game around choice and consequence.

That's not what you're doing when you start handing out second chances. Handing out second chances is the deconstruction of basic choice and consequence design philosophy. It's a design construction that allows the player to avoid choice and consequence gameplay.

I think Bethesda understands their core demo, and it is me.

Funny how the core demographic isn't that same one as it was for Fallout 1/2 then, huh? How telling.

 

[daemonofdecay]

Don't get me wrong I would be running hard in the opposite direction but I'm sure some manipulative soul prepared to run the risk of being blown sky high might stay behind and spread religious nonsense if he got to control a few people.

Well, one of the reasons could be that because in Fallout so much of everyday life is derived from Nuclear-related things (the cars? Nuka cola?), so they might be more trusting and ignorant of the dangers.

I mean, if your car is powered by a nuclear engine, then you might feel a little more comfortable around it. Me, I'd stick to a bike.

And to me, it just strikes me as a somewhat silly situation, but one that at least follows some kind of logic: dud bomb is symbol from god(s) that his is a safe place. Years later, since bomb has been no trouble for years, people mostly ignore its threat.

But there might be other reasons beyond the religious: the area around Megaton might actually be somewhat safer and cleaner than other regions, because the bomb that was supposed to go off there didn't. Less radiation in the local area might translate as safer.

But as to the letting the PC get away with fiddling with the bomb maybe the Sherrif is either a) incompetent (rookie mistake gets him killed) and/or b) way too trusting. A irradiated and good natured yokel, if you will.

Funny how the core demographic isn't that same one as it was for Fallout 1/2 then, huh? How telling.

Its because you didn't have your mind destroyed through concentrated exposure to Pokemon in middle school. You can still tell quality from mediocrity.

 

[ookami]

A irradiated and good natured yokel, if you will.

I guess I'm missing the good-natured part of "You so much as breathe wrong and I'll fuckin' end ya."

Apparently that doesn't apply to 'breathing wrong' around their big bomb while unsupervised.

But, hey, I already knew that the Bethesda folks aren't very good when it comes to making anything consistent.

 

[Moving Target]

Well, one of the reasons could be that because in Fallout so much of everyday life is derived from Nuclear-related things (the cars? Nuka cola?), so they might be more trusting and ignorant of the dangers.

I'm sorry to do this, but I do have to mention this has been discussed to death and back. Nuclear power in Fallout is supposed to be a BIG BAD THING. This undermines the idea, severely.

Additionally, the fact that the town was built in the crater of the unexploded bomb, and the fact that you can get so close to the bomb without so much as a "Hey, what the hell do you think you're doing?!?" ... you know, your character being a stranger who was just seen talking to Burke (a guy who IN THE BAR is saying he wants to wipe Megaton off the map) ... it really doesn't add up.

Also, BN's said this, but I'll repeat: Simms (I think it was Simms... was it someone else?) knows how to defuse the bomb. Which for some reason they didn't do until you showed up. Go figure. Anyway: someone knows how to defuse it. So the ignorance exucse doesn't hold water.

And to me, it just strikes me as a somewhat silly situation, but one that at least follows some kind of logic: dud bomb is symbol from god(s) that his is a safe place. Years later, since bomb has been no trouble for years, people mostly ignore its threat.

Not... really. I mean, it makes sense if the bomb was outside of town in a temple somewhere. What doesn't make sense is that the whole town decided to build around the bomb, and that they stuck around it for so long.

But as to the letting the PC get away with fiddling with the bomb maybe the Sherrif is either a) incompetent (rookie mistake gets him killed) and/or b) way too trusting. A irradiated and good natured yokel, if you will.

Too handwavey. It really gets rid of a lot of logical considerations, such as, "Why let a total stranger, who was just seen talking to Burke, near the bomb in the first place?" and "If Simms is so intent on making sure you don't act up, why isn't he there, watching, making sure you don't touch the bomb?"

I mean, you'd figure that MAYBE if someone in the bar was paying attention to this new guy coming in and talking to crazy ol' Burke with his 'kill us all' schemes (which, BTW, make no sense- that also has been discussed to death in other threads) would at least mention that maybe Simms should watch this new character. And that if you got close to the bomb, you'd at least get arrested. Or do they just let anyone with a device with a bunch of numbers and buttons on it touch the bomb... with the device?

I'm sorry, but really... all these issues should've been ironed out months ago. The fact that all these logical holes are in the game doesn't bode well for it.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Additionally, the fact that the town was built in the crater of the unexploded bomb, and the fact that you can get so close to the bomb without so much as a "Hey, what the hell do you think you're doing?!?" ... you know, your character being a stranger who was just seen talking to Burke (a guy who IN THE BAR is saying he wants to wipe Megaton off the map) ... it really doesn't add up.

Not just any exploded bomb, an unexploded nuclear bomb leaking notable amounts of radiation. Someone, sometime had to have come by with a giger counter and tell them that they'd be fruitloops to stick around the device, let alone get close to it to worship it, unless they wanted to die soon.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Well I think the more hard core Fallout fans and people firmed in reality by now realize that Bethesda has screwed Fallout canon and world facts more up than adding to it.

NPCs that are pretty much card board cut outs without any programmed sense, loads of cars apparently all equipped with fusion cells that can explode, and flawed concept about a nuclear bomb.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Ya you would think that dutch ghost but if you go onto the offical bethesda fallout 3 boards you will see quite the contrary. I have read a lot from people saying they are fallout fans and happy about the new direction that bethesda is taking. However they might be lying and full of shit. Hard to tell.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Why the heck would they lie? Most people over there love FO3, and tons of members are joining up everyday, as expected really. Most TES fans will like how FO3 shaped up, seeing as it has got some of TES elements. And there are a few who don't like FO3 too.

 

[Brother None]

Why the heck would they lie? Most people over there love FO3, and tons of members are joining up everyday, as expected really. Most TES fans will like how FO3 shaped up, seeing as it has got some of TES elements. And there are a few who don't like FO3 too.

Most traditional Fallout fans have been run off or overwhelmed by now. As predictable, BGSF becomes the home of the fans. Which makes sense, it's an official forum. When Fallout 3 is out it will become a bash-fest, tho', just like with Oblivion.

Disgruntled Oblivion players are still the most numerous criti-casters of Fallout 3.

That said:

Ya you would think that dutch ghost but if you go onto the offical bethesda fallout 3 boards you will see quite the contrary. I have read a lot from people saying they are fallout fans and happy about the new direct that bethesda is taking. However they might be lying and full of shit. Hard to tell.

Don't be an idiot. Some people loved Fallout, just not all of it, and are bigger fans of the modern, easier gaming that Bethesda exemplifies. So they love Fallout 3, that hardly makes them "not Fallout fans" by default.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Brother none, you call me an idiot and then agree with my statement?

Are you being facetious or what?

 

[Brother None]

What? I was pointing out that calling people liars and "full of shit" because they express an opinion you don't agree with is pretty reaching.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Hi brother none, I'm englishmuffin, welcome to my conversation.

I never said that they were full of shit or liars just that they might be. Read what Dutch Ghost posted right above my post and then go from there.

If you have ever read the official fallout forums you will see a lot of people say that they are long time fallout fans while at the same time completely fine with the wacky logic of fallout 3 which I think would make anyone wonder. There are others that simply hated the combat but loved everything else and others that hated the combat and couldn't even play it.

I never said that they were full of shit for having an opinion I don't agree with but saying that you loved the original fallout games and then saying that you equally love the new one is a bit iffy logic to me.

It comes down to the word "might" which has no defining connotation behind it. They might also be klingons or have arms made of pizza. No offense to klingons and people with pizza arms.

 

[Brother None]

I never said that they were full of shit for having an opinion I don't agree with but saying that you loved the original fallout games and then saying that you equally love the new one is a bit iffy logic to me.

Not really, it's just personal preference. As long as you don't come out acting as if your position makes sense or has logic to back it up, it's fine, it's just a personal choice.

Don't pick nits on the word "might". You're implying that it's possible that they're liars or full of shit just because they like Fallout 1, 2 *and* what they've seen of 3 so far. That's just nonsense.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Ok prove to me that they are not. It might be possible for someone to love fallout 1 and 2, then equally love oblivion and every other bethesda product, THEN see fallout 3 and think that it is just as good as all those other games. It might also be possible that they are fabricating their love for fallout or for the TES series.

Notice that I also used the word equal which is pretty key. "Equally" and "might". I cannot believe that people hear the voice acting, hear "choo choo" and "cha ching", and see very rigid animations and think that this is somehow more immersive than fallout 1 and 2.

Of course this can all be thought on the level of blind faith in bethesda to do no wrong and refuse to acknowledge the blatantly obvious flaws with the game. Then again they have been so terribly punished over the years by bad games that they have forgotten what a "good" game actually is.

I have heard a lot of them say that they are hard core fans of fallout and I just don't believe it. It could be true, or they could just be saying it to seem like they are making a connection to the person they are arguing with.

Still you have to read everything together to get the picture which I don't think you did.

"Well I think the more hard core Fallout fans and people firmed in reality by now realize that Bethesda has screwed Fallout canon and world facts more up than adding to it. NPCs that are pretty much card board cut outs without any programmed sense, loads of cars apparently all equipped with fusion cells that can explode, and flawed concept about a nuclear bomb."

Start there and make your way down. The first and second sentences are factual where the third one is my opinion and isn't even actually asserting itself to a definitive stance, so this whole conversation is rather pointless.

I still find that it is funny that you agree with my first 2 sentences and then forget about that and just focus on the third.

 

[Brother None]

I still find that it is funny that you agree with my first 2 sentences and then forget about that and just focus on the third.

What? I see you unnecessarily insulting people from another forum (which is cross-site trolling, you should note, so you should be thanking me for not vatting it outright, not chewing off at me for talking it out) and call you on it. The problem is not that you think it's odd that people who are big fans of Fallout 1/2 would love Fallout 3, it's that you feel the need to express this opinion by saying the might be liars and full of shit.

Yes or no: that's just an unnecessary remark to make.

 

[thefalloutfan]

EM are you saying that someone can't love FO1/2 and FO3? =/ Well you're wrong eh, you can see that there are people whose got that opinion, for different reasons (such as they like the fact that at least a title like Fallout was resurrected, others who don't mind the changes, and others who love the changes etc).

I don't see why you think it's impossible. I liked the previous fallouts (FO1 mostly), and I'm waiting for FO3 too. Sure there are changes, but gameplay changes such as perspective and combat will not ruin the game for me, as long as the story and setting is kept. Obviously, we don't know how faithful the setting/environment/etc are right now.

But just to show you that there are people who honestly like the previous FO's, and are looking forward to FO3.

And of course, it's all opinions. What you think might not be a good enough reason, might be a great reason for someone else; with regards why one would like FO3.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

EM are you saying that someone can't love FO1/2 and FO3? =/ Well you're wrong eh, you can see that there are people whose got that opinion, for different reasons (such as they like the fact that at least a title like Fallout was resurrected, others who don't mind the changes, and others who love the changes etc).

I don't see why you think it's impossible. I liked the previous fallouts (FO1 mostly), and I'm waiting for FO3 too. Sure there are changes, but gameplay changes such as perspective and combat will not ruin the game for me, as long as the story and setting is kept. Obviously, we don't know how faithful the setting/environment/etc are right now.

But just to show you that there are people who honestly like the previous FO's, and are looking forward to FO3.

And of course, it's all opinions. What you think might not be a good enough reason, might be a great reason for someone else; with regards why one would like FO3.

I think that what really calls people out on any forum when they claim to be hardcore fans is how much they actually know about the game(s) they claim to be hardcore fans of. Many are consistently wrong or unknowledgable and make the claim that they are hardcore fans for a variety of reasons (fitting in, adding authority, being cool, ect.). People who claim to be fans of past games are a different matter, they don't have to have great knowledge of the game they simply have to have enjoyed it. People who claim to be fans of past games and then go on to talk about how much they hated the gameplay and loved the plot and setting are not fans of the game, they are fans of the plot and setting just like those who hate the plot and setting but love the gameplay are fans of the gameplay, not the whole game. It's akin to someone who claims to be a fan of some band but only actually likes a handful of their songs (one-hit wonder bands being the simplest example) while a fan of a band likes most of the bands songs while disliking only a handful.

To say that someone who loves the first two Fallout games can't love the third is ridiculous just as much as saying that someone who loves the first two Fallout games will love the third. To say that someone who loves the first two Fallout games can't like the third for all of the same reasons is a reasonable statement because the games are fundamentally different. You can like the gameplay and writing of both but both are clearly quite different, the writing less plainly obvious but still easily seen. Keep in mind that they have said on multiple occasions that they have said that they never even tried to make the writing similar to that in previous games and the examples we've seen are clearly a different style.

All in all, the point of both statements from what I can tell is that what was great about the previous games is completely different than what will be great about the new games and thus the old audience is not being targeted with the third game. The problem with the first statement is that it implies that if you like Fallout 3 then you can't be a Fallout 1&2 fan and saying otherwise is lying.

Anyway, this was probably a "blah, blah, blah" post but I was trying to find a true statement which doesn't call a sizable portion of people liars who aren't but carries the same overarching theme.