Fallout 3. Is it really so bad?

daemonofdecay said:
Thats not a word; its a question on the SAT.

"Use verisimilitude in a sentence."

Anyway, do giant scorpions created through radiation or a ghoul with a tree growing in its head really have the 'appearance or semblance of truth' (Thanks to dictionary.com! :D )?
Click to expand...

Good thing you looked it up in the dictionary and now completely understand what it means, huh?

Verisimilitude doesn't mean being realistic, it means that whatever you represent must have inner cohesion and thus be convincing to the audience. It is a term for stage plays, and Hamlet is still verisimilar despite having a ghost floating about because you'll never find yourself wondering "what is that ghost doing there?" That is verisimilitude.

The most important thing in verisimilitude is not that everything is explained or everything is realistic, it's that nothing in the setting will make you stop and go "hang on, but that makes no sense." Since Fallout is a retro-50s game, things that make sense for retro-50s (like giant insects) don't break verisimilitude. Stupid weapons do.

That's why "doy this setting has ghouls and powered armor so you can't complain about realism" is not an argument.
 
Brother None said:
Good thing you looked it up in the dictionary and now completely understand what it means, huh?
Click to expand...

Know it like the back of my hand now. I'll spring that puppy on the family at dinner time and see what happens! :D

Verisimilitude doesn't mean being realistic, it means that whatever you represent must have inner cohesion and thus be convincing to the audience. It is a term for stage plays, and Hamlet is still verisimilar despite having a ghost floating about because you'll never find yourself wondering "what is that ghost doing there?" That is verisimilitude.
Click to expand...

Ah, see, I was bringing up the Ghoul and power armour because people here were arguing that the Fatmans (or is the plural still 'Fatman'? 'Fatmen?) effects didn't fit in with Fallout because they don't behave like nukes do in our reality. Which was silly. Radiation in Fallout doesn't behave like it does in our reality, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in.

But if you are only arguing that it doesn't fit in with the general "theme" of Fallout, then I agree whole heartedly. Its out of place, especially when a more "realistic" and canon-friendly weapon would have been a regular rocket/grenade launcher.

That's why "doy this setting has ghouls and powered armor so you can't complain about realism" is not an argument.
Click to expand...

I agree. Fallout itself is not supposed to be about reality in our sense; thats why it has Radscorpions and the like. But it does have its own inner continuity that establishes what is "true" and plausible (Verisimilitude, as it were).
 
daemonofdecay said:
Ah, see, I was bringing up the Ghoul and power armour because people here were arguing that the Fatmans (or is the plural still 'Fatman'? 'Fatmen?) effects didn't fit in with Fallout because they don't behave like nukes do in our reality. Which was silly. Radiation in Fallout doesn't behave like it does in our reality, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in.[/quotes]

That's not what anyone's arguing here. At least not what I've seen (link to it or it didn't happen, BTW.)

My point, and the point that many other posters have made, is that the Fatman undermines Fallout's view on radiation and nuclear weapons: that it's a big, bad, nasty thing, scarcely used because it destroyed the world.

Having a BFG that shoots nukes definitely doesn't mesh with the earlier approach.

But if you are only arguing that it doesn't fit in with the general "theme" of Fallout, then I agree whole heartedly. Its out of place, especially when a more "realistic" and canon-friendly weapon would have been a regular rocket/grenade launcher.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what we're arguing. It would've been more acceptable (though somewhat goofy, and odd considering what the weight would probably be... but not out of place) if the Fatman launched regular ol' shells. The problem is that they're nuclear shots, and how the radiation is handled so poorly.
Click to expand...
 
Moving Target said:
That's not what anyone's arguing here. At least not what I've seen (link to it or it didn't happen, BTW.)
Click to expand...

It was earlier on, with someone talking about how a Fatman 'nuclear' explosion is impossible to recreate in our world (especially complete with mini-mushroom cloud).

That's exactly what we're arguing. It would've been more acceptable (though somewhat goofy, and odd considering what the weight would probably be... but not out of place) if the Fatman launched regular ol' shells. The problem is that they're nuclear shots, and how the radiation is handled so poorly.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I agree with that opinion. I personally think the Fatman should have been the previously mentioned boss-only 1-shot timed delay weapon, and then the BFG of the game could have been a rocket/grenade launcher with different rocket/grenade ammo types (HE, Gas, Smoke, Flashbang, whatever).

That would have been canon-friendly, and a suitably beat-up looking improvised launcher would have been a pretty cool weapon (especially if you could modify and upgrade it).
 
daemonofdecay said:
Moving Target said:
That's not what anyone's arguing here. At least not what I've seen (link to it or it didn't happen, BTW.)
Click to expand...

It was earlier on, with someone talking about how a Fatman 'nuclear' explosion is impossible to recreate in our world (especially complete with mini-mushroom cloud).
Click to expand...

The US did many tests with sub-1kt nuclear weapons during the Cold War, so the concept of a very small tactical or theater weapon is not unrealistic. These explosions did create mushroom clouds, and they were on a smaller scale than the classic cloud everyone knows.

The unrealistic part is that you probably couldn't carry them around on your back. Or at least, not more than one, and that's not including the launcher. And I certainly would not like to be nearby when it went off, Rad-X or no ;)
 
The US did many tests with sub-1kt nuclear weapons during the Cold War, so the concept of a very small tactical or theater weapon is not unrealistic. These explosions did create mushroom clouds, and they were on a smaller scale than the classic cloud everyone knows.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure those weapons weren't usable as personal defense weapons in a 30 meter range.
 
Well, I'm happy I saw those five gameplay videos recently. I’ve been keeping myself out of most Fallout 3 news, mostly because of law school, getting married, Metal Gear Solid 4, and I just didn’t want to get interested when no footage was being shown and release was still TBA.

It's helped make it clear to me what type of game I can hope for. I can't hope for a game like FO1 or FO2, but it seems like I can hope for an FPS/RPG like Deus Ex. I'm not expecting it to be anywhere as good as Deus Ex, but I'm hoping that my hunch that gameplay will be similar won't be too horribly off.

The game vibe I got was a FPS with some RPG elements. I can say I just hope it will be more enjoyable than Morrowind or Oblivion, which despite creating a world with its own history (the books), felt generic and dull in story, dialogue, and characters. Although I don't mind cursing I wish the first dialogue wasn’t something that felt like it came from the person who localized Yakuza (which is a very fun game).

The gameplay itself seems like a FPS made by someone who liked Story of Ricky (which isn't a bad thing), it’s just not Fallout. I’m just hopping it will be fun. I have no clue what that VATs called shot stuff is, but it struck me as a way to just pull off more gory kills. Like I said it struck me as Deus Ex, but with a Fallout TC, but that tried to put Fallout into the Deus Ex style of gameplay (which I love), instead of just the Fallout style. The trappings are there, just not how its was meant to be.

One thing about Fallout that I loved was how stark and depressing the world was. I remember arriving in the Den killing Tubby (?) loading up his gear, and how no one cared, maybe one of his junkies, but that’s it. It was just a world devoid of hope. It’s odd seeing working radios and cars and that creature that looked like Paul Blasdell designed it (he did a lot of the creature design on early AIP and Roger Corman movies). The world also just seemed bright, its weird, but when I think of Fallout I think of a world even in day that is barely lit.

Well I figure that I’m not expecting a game like Deus Ex, Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue, or any of my favs, but hoping for something on par with Mercenaries 2. Yeah, its buggy, but its fun, nothing too deep, just a fun game, that I really enjoyed. I think it’s a shame Fallout 3 can’t be more then that, but considering with trade in credit, I’m paying pretty much nothing. Still, I would love to be proven wrong.
 
gfan said:
Well I figure that I’m not expecting a game like Deus Ex, Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue, or any of my favs, but hoping for something on par with Mercenaries 2. Yeah, its buggy, but its fun, nothing too deep, just a fun game, that I really enjoyed. I think it’s a shame Fallout 3 can’t be more then that, but considering with trade in credit, I’m paying pretty much nothing. Still, I would love to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
I rented Mercs 2 yesterday and so far I have to say certain things remind me of Fallout 3. The nuke being one of them. But then again, I'm playing Mercenaries games, not an RPG, so who knows if I'll find F3 even half as enjoyable. At this point I'm just going to call Fallout 3, F3 and pretend it's brand new IP FPS.
 
M-26-7 said:
gfan said:
Well I figure that I’m not expecting a game like Deus Ex, Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue, or any of my favs, but hoping for something on par with Mercenaries 2. Yeah, its buggy, but its fun, nothing too deep, just a fun game, that I really enjoyed. I think it’s a shame Fallout 3 can’t be more then that, but considering with trade in credit, I’m paying pretty much nothing. Still, I would love to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
I rented Mercs 2 yesterday and so far I have to say certain things remind me of Fallout 3. The nuke being one of them. But then again, I'm playing Mercenaries games, not an RPG, so who knows if I'll find F3 even half as enjoyable. At this point I'm just going to call Fallout 3, F3 and pretend it's brand new IP FPS.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said it reminds of someone making a Fallout Mod for a different game.
 
The really high end high tech toys like power armour are in the hands of powerful technological factions. They provide a stark contrast to the rest of the fallout cities and factions. To me this is atmosphere, having a BoS looking like the closest thing to a "utopia" in a dark wasteland. Really like a sore thumb. And you know, once u get that power armor or plasma rifle you are at a class above most of the opposition. Feeling really less mortal.

Im not sure how early u get weapons like nuclear launcher or teddy bear launchers it just doesnt seem like something a Fallout faction would invent and create. It doesnt fit their archetype. If something nuclear were in the fallout universe it was to destroy some final obstacle w/o having to resort to face to face combat. As some sort of fitting final solution. Making it so easily available. The fingerprint seems so off :D. Wonder which npc invented it. I should lob it back at them :D.
 
Gravione said:
The really high end high tech toys like power armour are in the hands of powerful technological factions. They provide a stark contrast to the rest of the fallout cities and factions. To me this is atmosphere,
Click to expand...


:wall:

sure thing, buddy.
 
Is martial arts still in the game? or its ranged combat onry :D

So far i have not seen any mention except for the powerfist in the gameplay vid.
 
Sadly not everything from the past will ever be completely replicated in the present or the future. Things change, peoples ideas change, the desires of the public change...hell things change!

While it sucks that IP's get altered drastically in some ways (Cursed FPS Shadowrun!!!), I think Fallout 3 will be a decent addition to the franchise.
 
...Or in a few weeks we'll be talking (more) about "accursed Fallout FPS!" Which I'm leaning more toward as the actual (non-gold, Euro-only, so far) reviews are coming in. It doesn't seem horrendous, unless you're talking about the poor job on lore and mechanics, but it doesn't seem really stand-out (beyond how much money was spent on it).
 
Honestly.... the revulsion I have seen and read in relation to Fallout 3 is, yet again, symptomatic of a communities fear of seeing an IP evolve....snip If Zelda can evolve with the times, why not Fallout?
Click to expand...

As a fan, I don't fear the IP evolving. I understand that its necessary to change to survive, however Fallout didn't evolve the way it should have. Fallout 3 would be akin to a monkey evolving and no longer having arms and legs, a vestigial fin placed on its back replacing them and some racing stripes patterned into its fur.
 
Malakhar said:
Honestly.... the revulsion I have seen and read in relation to Fallout 3 is, yet again, symptomatic of a communities fear of seeing an IP evolve. Fallout has been a great series of games thus far, but lets remember that 2 was released 10 years ago. in 1998 the things that could have been done with a game engine now where unheard of. Do you seriously think that these games would be the same if the original Fallout were developed today? I see lots of folks complain about presentation being in an FPS style. Consider if you will the level of immersion you can enjoy in a first person RPG. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Iso pov in these games (ie diablo series, fallout, baldurs gate). Consider also that in the here and now Bethesda simply could not have reinvented that Fallout wheel with any hope of success. No one really has any concept of the final plot, nor the real flavor that the game will have. These are things that we don't have until the PC fires it up. Add to that the fact that we will eventually be able to mod it (this IS the oblivion engine, and that community has done amazing things) and I feel that it is both foolish and selfish for the Fallout community to harbor resentment or spite toward what could be an excellent addition to a great IP.

I have been an avid gamer since the days of Atari hardware, and there is one simple truth. When technology changes, nothing is sacred. If Zelda can evolve with the times, why not Fallout?
Click to expand...
Yeesh, do you people ever come up with something new?
Change is not the same as evolution.
Fallout's gameplay devices were not limited by technology at that time. First-person perspective existed long before the isometric viewpoint and was used in RPGs long before Fallout existed, too. Real-time combat as well.
Fallout was made to emulate Pen and paper gameplay, it was the basis of the entire game. Removing that means that you no longer have one of the core elements of the game series.
Does this make it a poor game? Not necessarily. But it does make it a poor Fallout game.

In conclusion, are you saying that we should like this game just because it's called Fallout 3?

PS: Why the fuck should we care whether or not Fallout 3 would be financially succesful with or without turn-based combat? Should we like all commercially succesful music just because its creators make lots of money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top