Fallout 3 LGC: MTV Multiplayer
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
thefalloutfan
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
That robot's been known to be in the game for some months now. Great that we can have a haircut, more customization the better.
And checkpoint means autosave no? It's deffo not a checkpoint like in some games, it's not Beth's type of system.
And checkpoint means autosave no? It's deffo not a checkpoint like in some games, it's not Beth's type of system.
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Beelzebud said:
It never ceases to amaze me why people would get upset about what I would classify as completely "optional" systems. I doubt you are forced to use your "house", you might even choose to decline it.
If having a "home base" is counter to your view of your character then don't get it, it's that simple.
I personally like having a home base. I hope they mix a quest or two into the mix with it. Getting the class specific base for Balders Gate (i believe it was BG2) was always one of my favorite parts of the game. Sure the decorating in Fallout 3 might be a little silly, but so what? If you don't like it, don't do it.
I think a game of this nature, is going to present to players of all types options that they may not enjoy. The action player will not want to do all the mini-games, that's fine I bet the majority are optional. The old-school roleplayer may not like the realtime run and gun, they have an option for vats.
I am not saying this game will be all things to all people, but I think getting upset because a part of the game doesn't match your world view is particularly short sighted. The only time it should affect you is if the element you are complaining about is "required" to complete the game with reasonable effort. Opviously that is a different story when you are talking about a multiplayer game because other peoples actions can affect your own, and one overpowering balance issue can decrease enjoyment for everyone, but in this case that is a irrelevant.
Edit:
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were "upset" by your comment, I was just using it as an example. I still think the point is valid.
Phancypants
First time out of the vault
Beelzebud said:
I loved the houses in Oblivion. I'm such a massive packrat in these games that it's really nice to have a place to store it all.
How's that PhD in physics treat'n yah?
Seymour the spore plant
Still Mildly Glowing
Xenophile said:
But even if that's true with most things in the game (and I doubt that's the case and people will be able to dodge every exploding car, Fatman and minigame out there, especially lockpicking), games shouldn't try to do just about everything because that usually stretches thin the quality of each of its features. It works in GTA, but not every game should be like that.
Housing, for an instance, can be a cool thing in a game. But it was done horribly in Oblivion, where the line between dropping an item or hurling it was blurry and thus made it a pain to arrange your stuff. I'd also argue that it kinda goes against Fallout's feel to play house in a barren wasteland - if you had a home somewhere in the original, being kicked out of the vault would have been much less impacting. Likewise, the fact that there are nuclear explosions galore between cars and catapults also detracts from the setting, and being able to ignore them does not make its inclusion a better design decision.
Phancypants
First time out of the vault
star said:
Thanks for coming out
-Oh, gosh, goodness gracious, did I just accidentally shoot you in the chest with my nuclear catapult? I.. I don't know how it happened... I was aiming at that bird over there and...
-Hey fuggeddaboutit. Could happen to anyone. You're buying that squirrel-on-a-stick or not?
Bravo. Bravissimo.
Ranne said:
Ha. Just a guess, but they probably don't even flinch when you shoot them either, standing rigid like a piece of cardboard. How's that for immershun? If you shot someone in the chest in real life, they would certainly be seriously injured at least, and if not incapacitated, would certainly try to take you down without hesitation.
TheGM
The voice of reason
I look at as a giant locker. Kinda like the car was.
Man I love that car. Got stuff - goes in the trunk. Not having to worry about trying to get stuff off of Ian when he dies. (one of the few things 2 has over 1)
I just wanna know...Is the robo Butler a Android or a Mr.Handy?
Man I love that car. Got stuff - goes in the trunk. Not having to worry about trying to get stuff off of Ian when he dies. (one of the few things 2 has over 1)
I just wanna know...Is the robo Butler a Android or a Mr.Handy?
BowserJesus
First time out of the vault
TheGM said:
I'm pretty sure it would probably be a Mr. Handy, considering the flamethrower. Didn't the Mr. Handy in FO2 have a FT?
TheGM
The voice of reason
BowserJesus said:
I only remember them smacking me around.
TheGM said:
Well, see it this way: you are leaving the Vault for the first time ever. You are entering the wasteland where you don't know anyone and don't know your way. A good game developer would use all aspects of the gameplay to really give you that feeling of uneasiness, of being totally alone, of having only yourself to rely on. You can only really count on yourself to survive this. In FO1 there was no car and using your npc's as packrats was a real drag. That meant that you had to think twice about taking this or that item with you. You'd get encumbered or your npc's would get encumbered (I know that there was a trick to avoid that from happening, but still). Believe it or not, but to me that added to the experience. In fact, when I replay the game I basically do what I learned the hard way: I only take those things with me that I know I'll need for sure. In FO2 they gave you a car, which meant you didn't have to think stuff like that through. It was more comfortable, I agree, it was easier, but it did hurt that feeling of knowing that you had to watch what you were dragging along with you.
Now you're gonna have a whole house, probably with several containers, so you can store and arrange your loot. You can paint the walls and perhaps buy an extra bookshelf (I dunno, but it seems likely). To me, personally, that takes away a lot of the I-need-to-watch-my-steps-feeling. Home is where your heart is, isn't it? That cosy feeling doesn't belong in the world of Fallout. It belongs in a Barbie game or, indeed, The Sims. It's another one of Bethesda's mistakes, whether you like it or not.
They just don't get FO. And it's too late now. Way too late.
Moving Target
Mildly Dipped
Zeld said:alec said:Also: I wonder if we'll get to decorate that house we seem to own. Choose the wallpaper and furniture and such...
They actually confirmed that, sooooo..... It's Sims with Mutants.
Added to sig. Oblivion with Hats, Sims with Mutants. Can't go wrong, eh?
Checkpoints... ick. I'm hoping it's just the poor quality of the article, but I unfortunately wouldn't be surprised if it really is that way.
@TheGM: The car in FO2 was silly, let's be honest here. It was fun, but didn't really make much sense. But there are two things we can learn from that:
1) Don't add something to an ostensible sequel that's even bigger and makes less sense (customizable house)
2) If you want a big-ass locker.... have a place in several towns where you can rent a big-ass locker. It makes more sense, and you'll still get to stockpile weapons, ammo, whatever else you want.
And since fast travel is in (the last preview I heard them mentioned called them "waypoints"), hey, just take a quickie trip to your stuff.
....Wait, did I just defend fast travel?
Dammit.
The more I read about what was wrong with FO2, the more I think that some of you simply won't be happy unless it's JUST LIKE FO1. I know that is an exaguration but still. It seems that anything that people who like FO in the past and still think FO3 will be fun, bring to the table, you all are like "Well that part of the originals was stupid or it sucked." But the thing is that 'we' liked those things and 'we' like some of what Beth has added to the game.
Is it canon? Some is some is not, but then again some of you think that half of FO2 was NOT canon...so in the end does it really matter what Beth does?
And besides EVERY locker was 'yours' if you decided to drop stuff in it, so why not claim an abbandoned vault as your 'home'...same thing, but Beth made a mechanic out of it...
Is it canon? Some is some is not, but then again some of you think that half of FO2 was NOT canon...so in the end does it really matter what Beth does?
And besides EVERY locker was 'yours' if you decided to drop stuff in it, so why not claim an abbandoned vault as your 'home'...same thing, but Beth made a mechanic out of it...
While I agree with you that a small nuclear bomb explosion is ridiculous (The smallest was on a portable launcher, but was called the Davy Crockett and it could take out small cities I'm sure) I think perhaps he was talking about small nuclear explosions in science and physics, but that's irrelevant. On the topic of Davy Crockett, there were 2,100 made and deployed till 1971. while this actually does eem to fit in with Fallout tech (50s paranoia and mili-tech) I could hardly see you finding more than one warhead and launcher in the whole game. Considering this is like what 300 years after they were invented the possibility it would still work is slightly >0.Beelzebud said:
On the other side is the actual Fat Man bomb. Seeing as this a extremely antiquated nuclear device even for today and it was detonated over Nagasaki in 1945 and weighed over 4 tons I could hardly see this weapon being used by anyone who didn't possess a time machine and a heavy bomber. Basically this gun should be relegated to holy hand grenade status, if you know what I mean. Sigh. Some day I'll be a millionaire and I'll get this game built right if it bankrupts me.
Moving Target
Mildly Dipped
ArmorB said:
'It was fun to some of us' is irrelevant. As BN brought up in another thread (I think about two or three times in about as many posts, to several different posters) is that what matters is verisimilitude.
The question we should be asking is, 'Does it fit the setting?' You can flip out all you want about people saying that this or that was silly or shouldn't have been in FO2, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that having an entire house to yourself- and one you can decorate and add a ROBOT BUTLER TO, no less- does not mesh with the background of the original Fallout games.
Yes. Yes it does. Waypoints (confirmed). Bad. Exploding cars. Bad. Insult-to-injury bullet-time alleged TB VATS. Bad. Customizable house. Very bad. And pretty stupid, if you consider that you're supposed to be on a quest to find your father. Who the hell stops to rent a house when they're in the middle of trying to search for someone who means a lot to them? Probably not many people, I'd wager- even if they'd really really really REALLY like to keep all the neat swag they got.
Um... no. HERE'S where a 'technical limitations of the time' argument would make sense. It would suck, but.... theoretically, if a company wanted to make it possible to lose your stuff out of an unsecured locker or bookshelf, such as were all over the place in FO1/2, given today's programs, it wouldn't be out of the question that 'your' randomly picked, unlocked lockers could be looted.
Again, though, that would suck for the player. Unless there was a way to get secured storage. Which, again, would make MUCH more sense than having an entire house be available.