Fallout 3 LGC: MTV Multiplayer

Kikseo said:
Drakehash said:
We are talking here about fallout 3, not GTA IV...

PS: i like how you say "FO3 is NOT linear", the game is not even out and you can tell this...

Uh... I didn't mention GTA 4 at all dude. And if you're referring to the groin-stabber part, that was more Manhunt-directed. I was trying to get to that topic.

I also like the postscriptum there... You say it as if its not completely obvious that FO3 won't be linear.

Wanna bet??

100 bucks
 
Drakehash said:
Wanna bet??

100 bucks

100 dollars from a random guy on the internet sounds a bit shaky a best lol...

But, in real life, I would bet every single cent I have that FO3 will NOT be linear.

Dumbass... Read the reviews on NMA's main page before you start this sort of thing.
 
The game is a RPG -- you decide how your character acts, its not a matter of "feel" as far as I'm concerned. You can make the game "feel" like you're a homicidal freak by going city to city and stabbing people repeatedly in the groin in their sleep if you so felt. The game's feel is based around what you make it to be, and the only games that we as gamers need to worry about "feel" in are the linear ones (e.g. Manhunt, you can't be a happy-go-lucky dogooder who likes getting sprayed from his chainsaw victims.) -- and FO3 is NOT linear.

Yes, you're right. It is an RPG. But it is also a work of art. In terms of having fun only it's great for a game to be as non-linear and offer you as many threads as possible. On the other hand, there is such thing like message. Like "what did the author have in mind?".

The main idea of Fallout was to show the cruel postapocalyptic world in the retrofuturistic way. We have rights to judge it by watching what means of expression authors choose and how they suits to the main idea. So for me, a game which messes with setting sucks just like a poem about love sucks if there is a lot of swearing in it*. Fallout defends in almost all aspects of this kind of judging and Fallout 2 had a lot of unnecessary things but it still defend itself.

* it is simplified comparison, I know. In poem about love swearing may be used to make it ironical love poem but it's not the point.
 
Not to defend the cheesy "free house with robot butler" bit, but according to Bethesda they also want to reward neutral players, and I noticed nobody pointed it out so.. maybe there's a third option of just ignoring the bomb completely, and you will possibly get quests later on if you don't disarm or blow it up.

Hopefully after you get these "neutral" quests, you won't be able to go back and do the bomb quest. It should be resolved in a manner not involving the PC, to increase replay value (unlike Oblivion's "do everything" approach).

Anyway, I hope this is what they meant by rewarding people who want their Karma to stay around the 0 area.
 
PaladinHeart said:
Not to defend the cheesy "free house with robot butler" bit, but according to Bethesda they also want to reward neutral players, and I noticed nobody pointed it out so.. maybe there's a third option of just ignoring the bomb completely, and you will possibly get quests later on if you don't disarm or blow it up.

Hopefully after you get these "neutral" quests, you won't be able to go back and do the bomb quest. It should be resolved in a manner not involving the PC, to increase replay value (unlike Oblivion's "do everything" approach).

Anyway, I hope this is what they meant by rewarding people who want their Karma to stay around the 0 area.
I'm missing how the house has anything to do with rewarding neutral play...
 
the point of fallout is you are supposed to be a lone wanderer of the wastes.

car did not hamper and actually improved this idea by letting you wander around faster than walking.

a house contradicts this idea by giving you a "base" stopping you from being the lone wanderer and giving you a permanent place of residence.
 
Yes but it's a neat idea, apparently a lot of people like the idea of having some sort of house. I do. It's a reward for saving their town, it's the least they could do. Even if it didn't fit, it's great (imo) that you can store stuff and have some sort of place to stay. I'm a fan of houses, wanted it in Morrowind, had it in Oblivion, but there's not many more games which have this.

As much as some people don't like it, others do like it, and Beth can't please everyone. In this case, it's good for me that they catered for the people who like this idea.
 
thefalloutfan said:
As much as some people don't like it, others do like it, and Beth can't please everyone. In this case, it's good for me that they catered for the people who like this idea.

It seems that Beth always makes this choice, and attempts to please the lowest common denominator (console gamers who are about 15 years old who enjoy fast paced action games with little thought and patience and want to have a house that they can play with).
 
Nah you're just making that up. Besides fast paced action games, as much as they're not my kind of games, are still games, they require just as much gaming skills to play good.
 
thefalloutfan said:
Nah you're just making that up. Besides fast paced action games, as much as they're not my kind of games, are still games, they require just as much gaming skills to play good.

Where did I say that action games require no skill? That's right, I didn't.

My point was that Beth is making choices based on what the Xbox 360 gamer wants, not what the traditional cRPG fan wants in FO3.
 
I'd agree with your last point. The UI is to be different on the PC version, as well as the controls obviously. But none of us has seen the PC UI, so we can't comment if it's actually good, though I already know that there will be someone to complain that it's not good lol.
 
I'd agree with your last point. The UI is to be different on the PC version, as well as the controls obviously. But none of us has seen the PC UI, so we can't comment if it's actually good, though I already know that there will be someone to complain that it's not good lol.

You don't get many things, do you? It's not only about the UI (which I'd be very surprised if it's different from the console one), it's about everything they're doing with the game.
 
wouldn't the first thing you would want in a post-nuclear apocalypse be a place to call home? a place near people you trust and have become some sort of friends? especially when you've just been thrown out from the place you've lived in with friends and family for the last 18 years or whatever it is.

I really don't get the problem here either but decided to stay out of the argument. until now, because it got so damn ridiculous it wasn't even interesting to read anymore.
 
Kikseo said:
But the only thing I see is that you are given the house, or you can destroy the city. If you like the "wandering mercenary" type feel, blow the damn city sky high. The game is a RPG -- you decide how your character acts, its not a matter of "feel" as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I'm late to the party, but welcome to the forums.

Now, it seems to me that you're mistaking two different aspects of the game. Choices and consequences, or open-endedness, can certainly add a lot to the experience, but they don't comprise the whole of the game's feel in face of both the setting and the main storyline. No matter how non-linear a game might be, there's always some storytelling involved which has its own tone, and you will inevitably come across it. In some cases, such as Oblivion, the developers fail to integrate that properly with the gameplay - you're told the world is being invaded and the end is nigh, but you can still take all the time you like to finish the main quest. Here, you have to find your father after being chased away from the only home you've ever known into a desolated and harsh world but still find the time and will to settle down and play house.

thefalloutfan said:
As much as some people don't like it, others do like it, and Beth can't please everyone. In this case, it's good for me that they catered for the people who like this idea.

Sure, good for you, but we're stating that in making this decision they have hurt the very setting and feel that Bethesda claimed time and again was what made a game Fallout and was being kept for their installment. You can argue that it does not, in fact, go against the setting, but how many people like it makes no difference here.

aenemic said:
wouldn't the first thing you would want in a post-nuclear apocalypse be a place to call home? a place near people you trust and have become some sort of friends? especially when you've just been thrown out from the place you've lived in with friends and family for the last 18 years or whatever it is.

Yes, we all crave that warm and fuzzy feeling. And that is exactly why a game such as Fallout should not provide it, instead dragging our sorry asses by the balls through a radioactive dump of a world where life is shitty and pretty much worthless. Think Mad Max - it kicked serious ass until some braindead writer threw a village of kids at the character and turned the movie to post-apocalyptic Goonies. The fact that you grew up your entire life in a vault only makes it worse, in my opinion, since you're supposed to be attached to it, and that's what made Fallout's ending so awesome and impacting.
 
hm, for some reason one of my posts was moved to the vats with a bunch of others. I can understand the other posts being removed, but mine was part of this discussion and could very well be applied in reply to your post as well:

who's to say just because you get a house your life will be full of luxury? I seriously doubt that.

and maybe there's a quest in itself to get the robot etc.

for me this just adds to the role-playing aspect of the game and having the freedom to having a place to call home is great. I won't know wether I'm gonna take it or leave it until I play the game, but I'm definitely liking the possibility.

to add more: the place will likely be a dump (I would be very surprised and kind of annoyed if it looked all clean and tidy). and personally that'd feel like a big slap in the face as well, moving from the neat perfectionism of the vault to a shitty little cabin or whatever. if that is the case, of course. if it's a mansion I'll simply not take it and tell myself it's for role-playing reasons.
 
They've already said you'd be able to "decorate your house" with "theme packs" you can buy from a local trader. One of the "themes' they mentioned was a Vault style theme.

Now tell me this.

What kind of fucking sense does it make for a vendor to be selling House Decoration Theme Packs in a post-nuclear wasteland?

I'm feeling immersed in something alright, and it smells like shit.
 
Beelzebud said:
They've already said you'd be able to "decorate your house" with "theme packs" you can buy from a local trader. One of the "themes' they mentioned was a Vault style theme.

Now tell me this.

What kind of fucking sense does it make for a vendor to be selling House Decoration Theme Packs in a post-nuclear wasteland?

I'm feeling immersed in something alright, and it smells like shit.

:clap: :D
 
aenemic said:
who's to say just because you get a house your life will be full of luxury?

It doesn’t need to be. You will have a semblance of safety and stability even if they gave you the most bumfuck shithole ever seen by man. The quality of the house matters not, only the sense of belonging it brings which screws with the "wandering hero" theme.

aenemic said:
for me this just adds to the role-playing aspect of the game and having the freedom to having a place to call home is great.

Is it? Ok, since BN's own The Pony Remark (sorry, couldn’t resist the Seinfeld reference) didn't get the point across, I'll try to illustrate how some so-called choices can actually detract from a role-playing experience.

In Fallout 3, I want to play as Carson K., a Vault Dweller who just LOVES to help the poor people of the wasteland look a little nicer (no way they would attract a female in THOSE rag-tag outfits), and bring his touch of fashion to the barren, radioactive world. At the ripe age of 19, his bible-munching intolerant dad disappears and the Overseer suspects him of involvement (though he told them that, hello, conspiracy is SO out in 2277), so he seizes the opportunity to escape those dreadful steel walls and put some color into the lives of everyone by planting better clothes on random npcs and maybe make a career out of interior decorating. He'll never search for his dad, who's, like, WAY too closeted for him.
(disclaimer: this story is in no way intended to ridicule gay people in general, who I think are just swell)

See, in the original Fallout, your choices are limited compared to this kind of LARPing seen in Oblivion, but that's because they have an actual impact on the world. Good role-playing is more about acting as a believable character would in his setting than it is some land-of-do-as-you-please where everything should be an option despite contrasting hugely with the story. Should you play Fallout 3 as a guy who doesn't give a shit about dad or the vault, the game will still press you on with the main quest in order to complete it, which renders all this make-believe just that.
 
Should you play Fallout 3 as a guy who doesn't give a shit about dad or the vault, the game will still press you on with the main quest in order to complete it, which renders all this make-believe just that.

Just like when you don't give a shit about water chip and your vault.
 
I don't understand why Bethesda does not want a car on Fallout. A car makes much more sense. Why a wanderer would want need a house when a car would be better?

1. Faster travel. See, no more need to fake fast travel. Just say he drove with his car there.
2. It's better to sleep in a old car than in the ground.
3. You can carry weapons, ammo and supplies in your car anywhere you go. Can you do that with a house?
4. If your car is a Humvee or a pick-up, you can have a gunner to shoot at enemies! How awesome is that, huh?

Frankly, I would love to have a FPP sequence in the car. Seeing the car get full of dirt, having shootouts... that would be awesome.
 
Back
Top