Fallout 3, Bioshock: Videogames or not?
- Thread starter k9wazere
- Start date
It's not that I want all my games to be super-challenging. I really, really like Sonic 2 as an example of a fantastic game, and yet it's really not all that difficult.AstroManLuca said:
The thing I think that bugs me about F3 is probably the same thing that bugged me with Crysis.
All the enemies are dispatched the same way. They all have the same attacks, the same places to shoot at, the same weaknesses, it's all the same.
There really is no difference between killing a super mutant and killing a raider or an enclave soldier. They all have the same A.I. (A.S.?).
So little about the game ever changes as you play through.
That is why I made my comment about being on autopilot.
At least with old-school games and bosses, etc, there would be something new in every level. You didn't run around doing the same thing from the opening sequence to the end credits.
To me, F3 felt like a job. There was little variation, little strategy (hide round corner, let enemy run to you, pop out and BOOM headshot - works every time).
I'm sorry but I guess the game just lost my interest, due to a combination of things.
No difficulty.
Encounters all play the same way.
Pointlessness of getting involved with any faction.
And it's not a short game. You can do this for hours but you must realise you're doing the same thing all the time.
Look at games like Final Fantasy, MGS, etc. They spice things up frequently throughout the game. They ward off boredom by introducing new game elements, new characters, new spells, new this, new that. And boss fights, and things that need to be learned. And great customisation options too.
It's bascially the extra effort that they make in the game design department that makes these japenese games superior to F3.
F3 is a great setting (which Beth can largely thank the F1 crew for), a very well realised 3D landscape (which Beth can be proud of), but a very simple and endlessly repetitive game underneath it all.
Nevermind. I guess I'm not going to convince anyone with my rambling here. You've decided that F3 is a great game, and that gamers have a right to relax while they play.
And as for your comment about "there's plenty of hard games", you're right. But the trend today is to move away from that, especially from the big-budget studios. Truth is, "relaxation gamers" are probably a large market, and every company wants to milk them for all they're worth.
AstroManLuca
First time out of the vault
I understand where you're coming from but I challenge you to find one game that isn't basically the same thing over and over again. I'll give you that MGS is one of the best for breaking this trend (I only played MGS3 but the others are probably similar). It's fun because you have to approach every situation differently.
I never really said Fallout 3 was a great game. In fact, I criticized it for having exploration as its only redeeming quality once you do the main story.
Anyway, this again basically comes down to people who say video games are too easy vs. people who say video games shouldn't be hard. I think that most people who still like old NES games do so for the nostalgia and wouldn't actually enjoy an equally difficult but modern game. Games now are so much more complex that difficulty is only one of many facets, and high difficulty isn't necessary for a good game.
I never really said Fallout 3 was a great game. In fact, I criticized it for having exploration as its only redeeming quality once you do the main story.
Anyway, this again basically comes down to people who say video games are too easy vs. people who say video games shouldn't be hard. I think that most people who still like old NES games do so for the nostalgia and wouldn't actually enjoy an equally difficult but modern game. Games now are so much more complex that difficulty is only one of many facets, and high difficulty isn't necessary for a good game.
Finding games that break molds now days is difficult, because everyone wants to play the same basic things over and over. For awhile, for example, I was really into RPG's. This was back when I was younger, and had just gotten the SNES. Some badass jRPG's had come out on it, and they broke the mold then, because, well, there was relatively little out there for them to go up against. Then as time went on, games followed the same general norm. FPS's all fell into the same concepts, either military or scifi. Fallout was a mold breaking game in my opinion, and then games like Diablo II and Baldur's Gate, but after those came out tons of clones or similar games began coming out. Now, to find a really ground breaking game that doesn't follow every other game out there is hard, because developers find a nitch and are scared to deviate too far, lest they alienate players.
I have seen a few really amazing games come out in the last few years, but they are rare. For the most part all games follow the same basic concept of their 'genre.'
Difficulty ratings and levels are, in my opinion, secondary to a good story and fun concept. However, I do enjoy being challenged when I play a video game, so if it's too terribly easy, I quickly lose interest. Fallout 3 is definitely an easy game, though I've done a few things to make it more challenging, such as turning the rating up to Very Hard, and trying not to use VATS except as maybe a last ditch.
MGS wasn't, I dunno, that ground breaking, in my opinion. There were games already out there doing the stealth thing, like the original Tenchu, though MGS was the first military-style stealth game to come out, that blended mecha and other very anime/Japanese scifi/fantasy elements. But all those things had been done before in one form or another.
I have seen a few really amazing games come out in the last few years, but they are rare. For the most part all games follow the same basic concept of their 'genre.'
Difficulty ratings and levels are, in my opinion, secondary to a good story and fun concept. However, I do enjoy being challenged when I play a video game, so if it's too terribly easy, I quickly lose interest. Fallout 3 is definitely an easy game, though I've done a few things to make it more challenging, such as turning the rating up to Very Hard, and trying not to use VATS except as maybe a last ditch.
MGS wasn't, I dunno, that ground breaking, in my opinion. There were games already out there doing the stealth thing, like the original Tenchu, though MGS was the first military-style stealth game to come out, that blended mecha and other very anime/Japanese scifi/fantasy elements. But all those things had been done before in one form or another.
Interesting. You could say any shooter is basically doing the same thing, but there are shooters which spice things up, and shooters which remain pretty limited and bland throughout.
I'd personally say that even Quake had more variety than F3 does. And more interesting gameplay. Multiple enemy types with different strategies to kill, engaging level design, and weapons with different effects.
Coupled with that is the fact that Quake knows what it is (a shooter) and does it damned well. F3 doesn't seem to know what it is (am I shooter? A sim? An adventure?) and doesn't seem to pull off anything with particular gusto.
I'd personally say that even Quake had more variety than F3 does. And more interesting gameplay. Multiple enemy types with different strategies to kill, engaging level design, and weapons with different effects.
Coupled with that is the fact that Quake knows what it is (a shooter) and does it damned well. F3 doesn't seem to know what it is (am I shooter? A sim? An adventure?) and doesn't seem to pull off anything with particular gusto.
k9wazere said:
k9wazere your nuts...quake more strategy monster running at you shoot monster shoting at you dodge...really if you see strategy in quake your not exactly smart...
About other things like interesting gameplay LOL your 6-7 years old? strategies to kill you mean push button 1-10 select weapon and push fire? level design whats wrong with Fallout 3 level desigen?
Strike for gregor. Learn to reply normally and with some actual arguments instead of just wailing around screaming 'you're an idiot' with bad grammar and spelling.
Over-reliance on copy-paste areas like subway stations.gregor_y said:
I know that subways stations aren't the most interesting places, and I fully accept that Beth could hardly place a gothic castle in the middle of DC (Quake gothic castles > FO3 subway stations, for sure).
So perhaps one or two subway station areas would have sufficed. Not 15, all virtually identical. And certainly a big mistake to force the player to see so many of them to get around the city.
After I'd explored one or two subways, I started to dread them. They'd be filled with identical monsters I'd have to kill, for no reason, and there would be no sense of exploration due to each one being (almost) identical.
Same with the big malls. All of them were simply a main corridor with a few rooms. OK, that's realistic, because office buildings are like that.
But it is fun? Is it good level design?
I'm mindful that FO1/2 didn't set the world of fire with its level design. But that game wasn't a shooter. It had far more depth than F3 could hope to, character & plot I got wrapped up in, and various other plus points.
In F3 the level design matters more to me, because there's so little else to really concern myself with.
*sigh*gregor_y said:
No, you called him a 6-year old and insulted him in every way except literally calling him an idiot. Oh goodie what a difference.
You are not making any real points, all you are saying is that someone is wrong. Whoopdidoo, that's not an argument.
k9wazere said:
Well thats smart copy-paste is used in every game.Most of new games maybe old Baldurs Gate 1 & 2,Planescape Tournament etc dident have it but now its always in games...
Level design agread on subways they are anoying but they look same in real life so its not really a minus.
So from what i understand if Fallout 3 was isometric you wouldent complain?
I know F3 got bugs and its not finished some dialogues dont make sense but well i still like it...
Any way sorry about earlier you got your taste and i got mine true is i would love return of 2d games but that will never happen
Sander said:
Well at least his young
Heh. If you really care about my age, you could probably have a reasonable guess based on the 3rd paragraph in my first post.gregor_y said:Well at least his young
Also my first console was an Atari 2600; my first home computer a Commodore C64.
First games I remember playing are Tooth Invaders, Spy Hunter and Lunar Lander.
[edit: It was called Jupiter Lander, not Lunar Lander
]k9wazere said:Heh. If you really care about my age, you could probably have a reasonable guess based on the 3rd paragraph in my first post.gregor_y said:Well at least his young
Also my first console was an Atari 2600; my first home computer a Commodore C64.
First games I remember playing are Tooth Invaders, Spy Hunter and Lunar Lander.
I played Lunar Lander
dont remember exact model of Atari but i remember i had old GTA it was called Big Apple After Atari > Amiga 500 & 1200 on Amga was a game Burntime similar to Fallout> PSX (failure) > PC & Windows
Edit:Lunar Lander point is your remember this game so its good memory
Damn i love old games...i had best times with Amiga
And in the same respect, you could theoretically kill a big daddy by playing on easy and never being threatened at all. I understand that the "don't use it" argument is old, tired and overused, but in this case it absolutely works. The complaint is that BioShock is too easy because it is not a traditional die-and-load shooter. I agree, so I played it as a traditional die-and-load shooter. There's nothing forcing you to respawn at a vita-chamber instead of loading your last save. Without vita-chambers, the game was quite challenging on Hard, but absolutely doable. It meant I had to hoard every speck of high damage or armor piercing ammo for the big daddy fights, AFTER clearing out the entire area and plotting all the places I had to run to. The final boss, however, took me to a whole new realm of disappointingly-easy, but that appears to be beside the point.
--
I have to continue to disagree that FO3 gameplay is the same, over and over again, at least not to the degree claimed. On Normal, fighting any monster is practically the same. Monster HP is all so low that headshots with a decent weapon will make short work of anything.
Adjust the difficulty slider, and the game is far improved. Not fixed, mind you. Not made excellent, or memorable, or worth-my-$50, but far improved. It becomes a challenge. Fights become more than headshot = win.
The argument used to counter this was that playing FO3 on Very Hard is simply means "You are a retard who brings a slingshot to a gun fight". What's wrong with that? In any old platformer, that was exactly the predicament you were in, and yet those games have been listed as fun. In most of these games, you were a tiny weakling who could sustain roughly one or two hits, versus an entire horde of similar enemies. Survive the horde, and find yourself pitted against a Boss who can sustain 8, 10, 20 hits, and only if delivered in a specific manner. Talk about bringing a slingshot to a gun fight.
It's also important to note how repetitive these old games were. Sonic 2 is a good example of an excellent game that was extremely repetitive. Your moves are Run, Jump, Dash and Spin Dash. No spells, no weapons, no allies (you can't really count Tails as an ally
). Gear is restricted to computers that offer either Forcefields or Invincibility. Just you, your jumping, and some rings.Crysis has also been brought to the picture, again with the complaint that every enemy is killed exactly the same way. While, as with FO3, I do not think Crysis was any sort of revolutionary game, this argument is simply wrong. Crysis features excellent tactical shooting if, again, you bother to play on Delta (Very Hard, for non Crysis players). And excellent tactical shooting means that while every enemy is nearly generic, each encounter plays out differently. Sometimes there's not much cover, sometimes there's a sniper. Sometimes theres a second patrol playing rearguard. Not repetitive.
Before I go any further, let me say that I absolutely sympathize with those who feel cheated by FO3. As a hardcore gamer, I too am finding it increasingly difficult to find a game that actually provides a worthy challenge. Though I have not played any previous Fallout game, the impression I have gotten from these forums is that the Fallout series was one that still appealed to the niche type of gamer who traffics these forums. To have the title made mainstream by BethSoft is cruel and unusual punishment. I am sorry.
To attack Fallout 3 because it is no way resembling anything the Fallout series was ever meant to be is absolutely fine. Incidentally, I've never played another Fallout game, so you'll get no discussion or argument on this point from me.
But to attack games of Fallout 3's genre as not games, at least on the bases provided thus far, is incorrect. What you are attacking is a genre of game you do not enjoy.
BioShock (again, sans vita-chambers) was an excellent example of a regular shooter with a good plot. To top it off, the game not only makes an argument against Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", but even offers philosophical commentary on the very nature of being a gamer ("A man chooses...").
Crysis, while being devoid of any meaningful plot whatsoever, is an excellent tactical shooter. It offers just enough of a sandbox to allow for multiple playstyles, and can thusly be played through again and again for a fresher experience than many, better shooters.
To sum everything up, the complaints here are specfically against the nature of FPS gameplay, and against the necessity of using Difficulty Settings to achieve a challenge. These are not complaints against a game being easy or poorly made. They are complaints against a genre not suiting one's tastes.
--
Edit: I agree 100% with the criticism made against FO3 difficulty settings. Settings that increase monster HP and little else are outdated and primitive. A better alternative would be to see smarter AI, larger groups of monsters, less forgiving factions, or smarter AI. (did I mention smarter AI?)
Edit2: Snuck in some minor edits to clarify points, correct grammar 5:34PM EDT)
Crysis is more of a technology showcase in my mind than anything else. The actual game is a well executed tactical shooter. Nothing terribly groundbreaking in terms of gameplay, but the quality is there.
That being said, I am one who believes that the FPS genre is still a "valid video game". I don't necessarily consider it to be a redeeming quality though. Bioshock and Fallout 3 are both decent FPS games, although what made Bioshock a real gem was the fact it hides a social commentary.
In Bioshock, Ayn Rand's vision is realized and leads to a dystopic nightmare rife with corruption and violence. I think the writers of Bioshock may be the sorts that feel extreme objectivism and a strong mix of laissez-faire capitalism are the "path to the dark side". A society where altruism is regarded as the root of all evil would be a pretty bleak society indeed!
I think its fair to say a few things:
1) The "Hollywood Blockbuster Games" are still games, though many of them are easy games.
2) Even these appeal to the masses games can have quality to the writing.
3) Fallout 3 fails at #2.
4) #3 is why we all wish Fallout 3 never happened this way
That being said, I am one who believes that the FPS genre is still a "valid video game". I don't necessarily consider it to be a redeeming quality though. Bioshock and Fallout 3 are both decent FPS games, although what made Bioshock a real gem was the fact it hides a social commentary.
In Bioshock, Ayn Rand's vision is realized and leads to a dystopic nightmare rife with corruption and violence. I think the writers of Bioshock may be the sorts that feel extreme objectivism and a strong mix of laissez-faire capitalism are the "path to the dark side". A society where altruism is regarded as the root of all evil would be a pretty bleak society indeed!
I think its fair to say a few things:
1) The "Hollywood Blockbuster Games" are still games, though many of them are easy games.
2) Even these appeal to the masses games can have quality to the writing.
3) Fallout 3 fails at #2.
4) #3 is why we all wish Fallout 3 never happened this way
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
You know, I played the demo for bioshock, and I genuinely enjoyed it. Thing is that I can't seem to find any reason to buy it now. The story wasn't super-compelling, I already got a good hefty helping of the artistic direction which is the main reason I enjoyed it, the combat was adequate but a little dull I suppose, and the other plasmids you recieved didn't really intrigue me enough to justify a purchase.
NYHoustonman
First time out of the vault
BloodyPuppy said:
If somebody ruined the story for you I could see that, but if you haven't played through it yet it is without a doubt worth it. You'd be wrong to assume you've experienced everything the game has to offer just by playing the demo
.
Hobo In A Box
First time out of the vault
Mega Man involved skill? Get the fuck out here with that, it was a memory game, nothing more.
But alas, the market is dying for the retards. The last current gen game I remember playing which tried to challenge you was the witcher, and I seem to remember people a lot of people complaining about it because it didn't tell them do things or how to do them. (this was the first version, hopefully they sticked to this with the enhanced edition.)
I was surprised because even that game gave help to people in a small way, so I have given up on society.
But alas, the market is dying for the retards. The last current gen game I remember playing which tried to challenge you was the witcher, and I seem to remember people a lot of people complaining about it because it didn't tell them do things or how to do them. (this was the first version, hopefully they sticked to this with the enhanced edition.)
I was surprised because even that game gave help to people in a small way, so I have given up on society.
k9wazere said:
Tech demos for game consoles. Sandbox shooters with few negative consequences.
It's more about the "immersive experience" than the challenge of learning the game. This is part of the progression toward making games feel like cinematic movies that take you on a scripted ride rather than a rules-based world in which you can challenge the limits of the game and possibly lose. If a game is too challenging, the 12-year-olds will have their egos damaged, and they'll post their fiery wrath on such bastions of intelligence as the Gamestop forums, and game publishers worry that such negative feedback would hurt their bottom line.