Fallout 3 LGC: MTV Multiplayer

Jim Cojones said:
Yes, you're right. It is an RPG. But it is also a work of art.
Click to expand...

Heh, the 'games as art' statement. Makes me laugh every time...

Slaughter Manslaught said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nothing can kill a game like a bad driving section (See the Matrix games, and the new Bourne Conspiricy game). To implement properly, it would require another split of resources within the dev team, as well as the mapping team putting in place not only walking routes, but driving routes as well.

As far as damage, if the car was destructable (such as in GTA), you'd need to have a large supply of running cars available. If it was indestructable, then all the battles turn into games of 'handbrake through the mob'.
 
Or the car could be used like it was in Fallout 2, where you wouldn't actually have to drive it, it would just be the logical mechanism for enabling fast travel.

You could wander around on foot, exploring the actual terrain. Or drive to discovered locations quickly, and your car would be parked to allow access to the trunk, thus giving your nomadic character a logical place to store his/her things. No House or Theme Packs required.

You know. Like a damned Fallout game.
 
Ausir said:
Just like when you don't give a shit about water chip and your vault.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Computer RPGs will always have some degree of railroading with regards to the main quest, and so prioritizing this kind of freedom over coherency sounds like a bad deal to me.

Beelzebud said:
Or the car could be used like it was in Fallout 2, where you wouldn't actually have to drive it, it would just be the logical mechanism for enabling fast travel.
Click to expand...

It would even serve as an explanation to why fast travel bypasses random encounters. While I recall it increasing your Outdoorsman skill in Fallout 2 or something like that, I always thought random encounters you weren't able to avoid when traveling by car should have some sort of special object placement, like barricades in front of your car, to sidestep the "oh, look, Raiders! I think I'll pull over here" effect.
 
Although having a house is a minor thing for some of you (among a pile of other minor things we should all ignore), i agree with Brother None and Alec when it comes to breaking the setting of Fallout and the feeling of loneliness and nomad aspect.

It's worth mencioning the other aspects of this house thing, butler? house themes in merchants?come on people how can you defend something like that?

The way i see i it's like Water World, do you want to live here?then go scavenge some crap and build your hut, the more the merrier. But the PC don't want that, you are supposed to find your father.

The same shit that Oblivion did with a house in every town.

And btw Brother None is too kind with the fanboys, if i were him i would have released Roshambo on you people a long time ago.
 
JESUS said:
And btw Brother None is too kind with the fanboys, if i were him i would have released Roshambo on you people a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because this is a discussion forum? We're fanboys in the same that you're a unpleasable ranter. Both sides can be painted with an equally unappealing brush. *Gasp* A differing opinion. ON THE INTERNET! A call to arms, my friends!

I don't agree with many of Brother None's viewpoints on Fallout 3, but I haven't seen him act out against posters purely on the basis of differing viewpoints.
 
Phancypants said:
JESUS said:
And btw Brother None is too kind with the fanboys, if i were him i would have released Roshambo on you people a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because this is a discussion forum? We're fanboys in the same that you're a unpleasable ranter. Both sides can be painted with an equally unappealing brush. *Gasp* A differing opinion. ON THE INTERNET! A call to arms, my friends!

I don't agree with many of Brother None's viewpoints on Fallout 3, but I haven't seen him act out against posters purely on the basis of differing viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Agreed you can state your opinions here whenever you want, it's your right to do so, what's most annoying about the fanboys is that
reason is not in their arguments, defend the game just because they don't like the rants of the old fans is their motive.

And as anyone can see by reading old posts and threads here at NMA, most of the old fans of Fallout defend the good things that BS comes up with, and try to have discussions without arguments like ignoring a setting or a design decision.

And the Roshambo spirit is sometimes needed (some of you praise mediocrity and come up with excuses for the bad ideas the designers have), instead of debating your strawman arguments and trying to reason with you why this was a bad thing to implement in a Fallout game setting.
 
JESUS said:
And the Roshambo spirit is sometimes needed (some of you praise mediocrity and come up with excuses for the bad ideas the designers have), instead of debating your strawman arguments and trying to reason with you why this was a bad thing to implement in a Fallout game setting.
Click to expand...

Yes, strawman arguments are purely the domain of the 'fanboys'. We should just agree to disagree on this one as well though before we start getting Vatted
 
Yeah and i don't have the Roshambo spirit, which i regret sometimes, nor his eloquence when it comes to pissing off the fanboys.

My point was that if you read the playthrough at the first post the most irritating points of the mess they made design wise were the fact that the nuclear catapult was found near the boss you have to use it, the holster weapon shit deal to calm people you just shot at out, and the butler at the designing sims house.

So you see the house if implemented the right way, with the right excuses for its appearance would still be a pain in the ass to avoid the setting break, but with the butler and the designing options is just a piece of shit whatever you look at it.
 
I don't have a clue why my post was moved to the vats earlier, but it applies here:

1. In one of the demos, Todd stated that the Fat Man was only available in the demo to let you play with it against the behemoth and that it actually wasn't available that early in the game. BTW, I do agree it is a stupid concept and don't plan on using it.

2. The previewer was griping that you couldn't holster your gun and make friends after shooting someone. Personally I think it makes sense the butlers survival programing kicked in and ran you out of town after you shot it.

As for why is there an empty house...Um, it is entirely possible that megaton's population for various reasons, among them mutant and raider attacks, is not busting at the seems. So it is entirely possible that there flat out wasn't anyone living there. I doubt there is a huge real estate market in Post apocalyptic DC.

As for the robot butler, it kind of fits in with the 50s idea of the role robots would play in the future. Though it is hard to believe one would be perfectly functioning after all this time.

In addition, disturbing the lone wanderer dynamic doesn't really bother me, because FO1 was the only game that was truly built on that. In FO2 you had an army of companions if you had the Charisma and you were never cast out like you were in 1. I don't think the lone wanderer aspect is a necessity of FO.
 
Texas Renegade said:
I thought fast travel was done through the subways, not just random fast traveling?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, you can fast travel from anywhere on the world map to anywhere you've already been. Fast subway travel was a suggestion brought up by fans, and/or possibly something they considered earlier in development.
 
Per said:
Texas Renegade said:
I thought fast travel was done through the subways, not just random fast traveling?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, you can fast travel from anywhere on the world map to anywhere you've already been. Fast subway travel was a suggestion brought up by fans, and/or possibly something they considered earlier in development.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I always thought they were using suways as dungeons, not a bad idea IF they don't overuse it as they did with Oblivion's eight hundred mining caves.

The car as used in Fallout wouldn't bother me at all, though, and it would always be better than the "teleport from A to B if you've already been there" scheme, which is rather ridiculous.
Using a car could set some requirements for the fast travel, such as actually owning one, finding/buying energy means for it, needing some skill to drive it, etc.
 
Texas Renegade said:
In addition, disturbing the lone wanderer dynamic doesn't really bother me, because FO1 was the only game that was truly built on that. In FO2 you had an army of companions if you had the Charisma and you were never cast out like you were in 1. I don't think the lone wanderer aspect is a necessity of FO.
Click to expand...
Right, excpet after your entire village is razed and that a small group (max of five allies, most or all of which will die unless you work hard to avoid it) is hardly an army.
 
Slaughter Manslaught said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am sure they are leaving this for a DLC or a expansion, you will see, they just look a way to get money, and adding a feature like this one will make lot of ppl pay.
 
Todd said expansions will be similar to the Knights of the Nine rather than horse armour, so I guess he meant it'd be an expansion like more quests etc not something small.
 
As for the robot butler, it kind of fits in with the 50s idea of the role robots would play in the future. Though it is hard to believe one would be perfectly functioning after all this time.
Click to expand...
Maybe it fits 50's setting, but we have to remember it's a post-apo game based/inspired by 50's live style, not "50's live style" game.

I'd rather have my own car, like in Mad Max movies, than a house. Alone, with my highwayman, scavenging wastes...uhhhh :roll:

Looking at the worl beth design (which looks like a big junkyard), it's be hard to drive your car around there. A motorbike would be better :)
 
speaking of the "junkyard world" and still standing buildings and whatnot... Fired up fallout 1 yesterday after a long break and couldn't help noticing the intro featured a fallout world very similar to what bethesda is coming out with now.

I know the ingame world isn't similar to beths idea but the intro seems to share the same kind of world.

Am i wrong here?
 
Pope Viper said:
No, but it also appears that BS ripped off about 90% of what Fallout 1's intro was.
Click to expand...

Ah i see... i was also wondering if the fallout 1 was like... 2 days after the bombs fell or something
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top