thefalloutfan
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
MrSambuka said:thefalloutfan said:What floats your boat mate
I don't look much into such things.
Sounds like you and Bethesda have something in common.
Yeah, I guess I just want to have fun.
Fallout 3 LGC: MTV Multiplayer
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Yeah, I guess I just want to have fun.
EnglishMuffin
Still Mildly Glowing
I love the, "It's fun" defense. There are a lot of things in life that are fun. Good things are fun, bad things are fun, mediocre things are fun. Not everything that is fun should be in a game, especially if it ruins the overall feel and setting of it.
Whenever you take multiple functions and cram them into one platform you get a series of mediocre functions whereas you could have focused on one function and made it fantastic.
So what you have is bethesda trying to make a game for 6.5 billion people and what is going to happen is that everyone is going to be disappointed in the end.
Oblivion was fun, but the main storyline was shit, the combat was lacking, and the enemies leveling up with you was terrible.
Heroin is fun until it fucks up your entire life.
Counter strike is fun until 30 minutes later you figure out its just desert eagle, awp, AK, and M4.
Halo is fun until you play the single player.
Just because something is fun, does not mean it is of quality or has any replayablity or staying power.
And haircuts and character customization is total bullshit. Oh I have a beard and a hat, this game is so fantastic. Except that it means nothing since there are many many games without this feature that are better than games with it.
If you want to go play something fun I would suggest you try Barbie Horse Adventure; I think it's right up your alley.
Whenever you take multiple functions and cram them into one platform you get a series of mediocre functions whereas you could have focused on one function and made it fantastic.
So what you have is bethesda trying to make a game for 6.5 billion people and what is going to happen is that everyone is going to be disappointed in the end.
Oblivion was fun, but the main storyline was shit, the combat was lacking, and the enemies leveling up with you was terrible.
Heroin is fun until it fucks up your entire life.
Counter strike is fun until 30 minutes later you figure out its just desert eagle, awp, AK, and M4.
Halo is fun until you play the single player.
Just because something is fun, does not mean it is of quality or has any replayablity or staying power.
And haircuts and character customization is total bullshit. Oh I have a beard and a hat, this game is so fantastic. Except that it means nothing since there are many many games without this feature that are better than games with it.
If you want to go play something fun I would suggest you try Barbie Horse Adventure; I think it's right up your alley.
Whew, well, thank goodness for Fallout since there aren't any other games to just 'have fun' with around. Good thing that Bethesda is filling that 'fun game' niche with Fallout which was never much of a thinking game in the first place. Forget the established lore and canon that makes the setting cohesive and interesting in the first place and might actually make that '3' in the title something meaningful for the series rather than just being Bethesda's dick-waving exercise. Forget any consideration towards sensible verisimilitude concerning that setting. Woohoo fun!thefalloutfan said:
If you want to have fun, why argue against us? We want to have fun too.
Looks like I'm coming late to this party, but I'd still like to share my thoughts.
Housing, which I don't have a problem with in general in gaming, just doesn't fit the atmosphere in the FO universe. I've always viewed one of the main themes of FO to be survival, and having a house with a robot butler who does your hair seems to go against that theme.
As for "it's fun," I'll say this. I'm a big fan of "Mario Kart" style games, but I don't want a kart in FO3.
While I was very optimistic in the months leading up to this games release, the more I hear about it, the less I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm guessing that I'll probably feel the same disappointment I did after playing TES IV and hoping it would be as good as III was.
Housing, which I don't have a problem with in general in gaming, just doesn't fit the atmosphere in the FO universe. I've always viewed one of the main themes of FO to be survival, and having a house with a robot butler who does your hair seems to go against that theme.
As for "it's fun," I'll say this. I'm a big fan of "Mario Kart" style games, but I don't want a kart in FO3.
While I was very optimistic in the months leading up to this games release, the more I hear about it, the less I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm guessing that I'll probably feel the same disappointment I did after playing TES IV and hoping it would be as good as III was.
PaladinHeart
Mildly Dipped
Shouldn't someone declare this the official Week of Verisimilitude?
Fallout 3 should have a Verisimilitude Device..
It gives you a piece of radioactive cheese...
or it gives you nice cheese...
or it gives you no cheese at all..
Or maybe, if you're lucky, it will give you the Cheese of Verisimilitude!
....
You can shoot it out of your rock-it-launcher and it will kill any enemy...
.... or not.
Fallout 3 should have a Verisimilitude Device..
It gives you a piece of radioactive cheese...
or it gives you nice cheese...
or it gives you no cheese at all..
Or maybe, if you're lucky, it will give you the Cheese of Verisimilitude!
....
You can shoot it out of your rock-it-launcher and it will kill any enemy...
.... or not.
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
PaladinHeart said:
Yeah.. it follows the year of the "Straw Man"... don't you know anything?
Xenophile said:
Yes! Finally, the solution to all problems in all videogames ever, just ignore what you don't like!
Y'know how you're watching a film and you don't like certain parts? Just shut your eyes! Or when you're listening to music and hate bits of it? Just put your fingers in your ears and hum!
Obviously there's no reason to complain when we can just ignore stuff. Nah, that'd be folly. Nevermind that pretty much everything is optional in games of the Oblivion-type so that lazy argument disregards all valid criticism, nag, the "ignore it"-argument still stands tall and proud as one of the most valid ever made.
Or, wait...not?
Don't any of you guys have an instinct that kicks in and goes "wait, this is a silly thing to say" when you post stuff like that?
Moving Target said:....Wait, did I just defend fast travel?
What's wrong with fast travel?
ArmorB said:
What does that have to do with this argument? This isn't something from the previous game. Also, the thing is, there's nothing wrong with recognizing valid repetition of the originals (like the way the Vault is constructed as a copy of the originals), the reason we're weary of this stuff is because you keep bringing up this nonsense:
ArmorB said:
Pretending that Fallout 2's flaws somehow validate Fallout 3. Do you not see how that does not work, especially when Bethesda swore several times to base the game primarily on Fallout 1 and ignore the Fallout 2 silliness?
ArmorB said:
"We" and "you"-isms aside (don't you just love segregation?), I bet most people could name something they think is cool or well done in Fallout 3 that's not a carbon copy of the original. I think Megaton's explosion rivals Fallout 2's ending explosion in prettiness. I think the PipBoy is well done as a device (though as a gaming interface it looks weak). I think the Behemoth is pretty cool as a rare monster (less cool as a "boss battle").
ArmorB said:
Oh man, that's totally like how in Oblivion you could crouch down next to bodies and pretend that you're eating them and in Fallout 3 it's a mechanic.
You make that "making it into a mechanic" sound as if it's a minor thing. Fallout's locker stupidity is something very different both in feel and in core mechanics from giving the player a home.
thefalloutfan said:
"It is fun", "it's just my opinion" and whatever is fine, y'know. You like fun? Fine, go out and like fun. But why come here and tell us you like fun? We don't care. We care about rationally structured arguments concerning the franchise we love. Personal tastes just don't factor into that, because it's not about my tastes, nor is it about yours. If it's about anyone's tastes, it's about the tastes of Fallout's original designers.
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Brother None said:
I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. If an element is "optional" and there is an alternative method of play included to accomplish the same goal.. and here is the important part... THAT YOU LIKE.. then having an alternative method that you don't like shouldn't be a big bone of contention. This also applies to a style of play that may be included that isn't required or totally optional.
This comment doesn't apply to content you can't avoid or if in the myriad of options, there isn't one that you enjoy.
But your analogy falls well short in this case.. you say.. close your eyes or "ignore" part of a movie you don't like (even though I do that all the time, it's what FF is for). A better analogy to the Player housing in Fallout 3 is the Bonus Features on a DVD. You don't have to watch them, and I personally don't usually, but some people love them and like to watch all of them. Their existence on the DVD takes nothing away from the enjoyment of watching the movie for me.
Now if those same features were required to be watched before I was able to watch the movie and I couldn't forward through them then they cease to be optional and would detract from my enjoyment. For someone that loves to aspous how well they can dispell disenting arguments I think you totally misfired on this one.
Melchizedek
First time out of the vault
What would make more sense to me is if, after you defused the bomb, instead of giving you a house, the people of Megaton told you they had no problem with you killing the guy who wanted you to blow it up and taking his house or shack or sleeping bag or whatever and any of his stuff.
I guess if you wanted to play a hermit who decided he didn't care to go back to the vault or live with any of the topside people it would make sense that you would want to go away from civilization, set up house somewhere and hunt or farm, but yeah, then you're pretty much playing The Sims, or Star Wars Galaxy . . .
I guess if you wanted to play a hermit who decided he didn't care to go back to the vault or live with any of the topside people it would make sense that you would want to go away from civilization, set up house somewhere and hunt or farm, but yeah, then you're pretty much playing The Sims, or Star Wars Galaxy . . .
Xenophile said:
And here's where you completely missed my point.
Y'know those little minigames when flying your ship in Jade Empire? Only had to do it once, but that doesn't matter to the question "was it good design to include that flying ship thing in Jade Empire"? Answer: no, it is stupid.
Something being fully optional does not mean it fails to impact your enjoyment of the game, because:
1. The very existence of the option can hurt the feel of the setting, as is the case here.
2. In many cases the game is balanced to assume you made this choice even if it is optional. I can't carry everything around in Fallout 3, that much is sure, so how good are the odds I'm going to need this house?
It all comes down to this: optional does not mean irrelevant. Your argument doesn't work because something can still be stupid even if you can choose to ignore it. Hell, ad absurdo, what if I reduce your argument to this: it doesn't matter that there's a flying pink pony in Fallout 3 that you can ride around, because it's optional.
Eh? Eh? See how that doesn't work?
X said:
"Ass-puss"?
sai | GLYPH
First time out of the vault
Brother None said:
Oh it's absolutely a matter of personal taste. It's just not a matter solely of personal taste. It'd really surprise me if it wasn't in your interest (or not in your taste) to see a Fallout 3 done truer to fallout 1. The matter here is the substance of depth to said tastes. And, if we're going to be judging a thing, it's impossible to base that solely on taste, as that would render every argument purely subjective and thus inconsequential. Taste still plays a role, is all I'm saying I guess.
As for thefalloutfan, you are a snake.
Saying things like "the more customization the better" precludes personal involvement. So don't turn around and tell us it's just your taste when we disagree with you, while slily neglecting to retract the statement. You're rewriting history.
Saying things like "all I want is to have fun" implies the other party does not, especially when the other party is in disagreement with you. And if it's just to do with your taste, what is the point of all this about fun anyway? A defense? A defense of what? Far as your logic goes; your taste can't be refuted, so how could it need a defense? Beyond that, it's not a valid argument for reasons addressed already.
Generally, you present yourself as a pleasant voice of reason, when really you play a shallow devil's advocate and troll. The things you say are baseless by design (reduced to taste). You take the opposition, and when we pounce you get ample opportunity to respond with things like, "all I want is to have fun." You're such a swell guy amongst us vultures.
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Brother None said:
Ah.. that depends on how optional it is. A classic example is all the strange cheat codes, that aren't activated unless you really want them. So yes.. if there was a cheat code to have a pink pony that would be fine with me. I will match your absurd entry with absurd optionality.
Cheat codes aren't what we're talking about here, as they have a tradition of not fitting into the game's settings or mechanics, whether it be the many codes of Doom or Clan Chocula in Bloodlines, cheats aren't bound either by gameplay consistency or verisimilitude.
No, I'm talking things that are in the game (cheating can be considered "outside" the game) that don't fit. There's a difference in scale obviously if you're talking getting a house or getting a pink pony, but both do not fit, and no amount of optionality changes that.
No, I'm talking things that are in the game (cheating can be considered "outside" the game) that don't fit. There's a difference in scale obviously if you're talking getting a house or getting a pink pony, but both do not fit, and no amount of optionality changes that.
Xenophile
It Wandered In From the Wastes
But see I think the arguement that getting a house doesn't fit is not really a valid arguement..
Given that you have already done something good for the town they figure they want to try to keep you around.. it's self-serving and fits well into the feeling of the game.
Does your character USING the house fit.. well now I think THAT is a question.. and that then goes back to the optionality of the gameplay.
EDIT:
sorry.. I meant them "offering" a house fits.. not the act of accepting.
Given that you have already done something good for the town they figure they want to try to keep you around.. it's self-serving and fits well into the feeling of the game.
Does your character USING the house fit.. well now I think THAT is a question.. and that then goes back to the optionality of the gameplay.
EDIT:
sorry.. I meant them "offering" a house fits.. not the act of accepting.
Xenophile said:
I'm not sure I follow. You say the argument should not be about whether or not getting the house is valid setting-wise (which is contested), but that it is whether or not the PC uses the house? That's just a short-cut back to your optionality argument, and it's pure semantics at best. Also, didn't we agree that its optionality doesn't actually impact whether or not it fits already?
Brother None said:
Yes, it just kicked in right now. Your comparison of a choice based game to music is "a silly thing to say". You know, putting your fingers into your ears when the bad part comes means you actually have to stop hearing that part all together.
<sarcasm> A linear collection of musical notes is EXACTLY like an open based game </sarcasm>
Oh, same goes with the a "movie". If you close your eyes to a certain part of a movie or shut your ears to a certain part of the music, you cannot go and choose alternative music of the same theme to listen to in the meantime.
I suggest you try and use a "less silly" comparison.
Yes, yes, shortstop, I get it, Xenophile already pointed out it is not a valid comparison and it wasn't meant as one, it was meant as a fun potshot.
I have already deconstructed the argument further in following posts. I have nothing to say about the game-to-film-to-music comparison other that indeed the comparison alone is not a solid argument, but that comparison is not the crux of my argument.
Though I should note that I find the comparison invalid myself, you actually validated it yourself:
You can go and choose alternative tracks when listening to a CD. Does that mean bad songs on the CD aren't bad?
Thanks for supporting my argument, I guess.
I have already deconstructed the argument further in following posts. I have nothing to say about the game-to-film-to-music comparison other that indeed the comparison alone is not a solid argument, but that comparison is not the crux of my argument.
Though I should note that I find the comparison invalid myself, you actually validated it yourself:
You can go and choose alternative tracks when listening to a CD. Does that mean bad songs on the CD aren't bad?
Thanks for supporting my argument, I guess.
I think people are getting worked up over a house. I'm not saying it will be a good game or like Fallout, but seriously...
Yes the idea of owning a house in the Fallout world is a bit fail. Yes it can't just be ignored. Fallout 1 and especially 2 both had their fair share of things that didn't fit.
Yes the idea of owning a house in the Fallout world is a bit fail. Yes it can't just be ignored. Fallout 1 and especially 2 both had their fair share of things that didn't fit.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Drakehash said:
no, I don't. I just see such unnecessary hatred and unfounded critisism here that I like to somehow try and put things in a more positive perspective. or simply point out when people don't know what the hell they are complaining about, because they complain only to complain.l
it wasn't impossible to make it all the way down to Navarro on your first playthrough. I'm sure not a lot of people did it, and even fewer got the PA and then headed for the Bozar next. my point was that it was possible. so why can't it be possible to find one of the best weapons early on in Fallout 3? we all know already that the ammo will be scarce. most likely, you'll get 1 or 2 shots for it when you find it at that point. and probably they put it there only so that you could take out the behemoth. I really don't see what the problem is. nowhere does it say that he no longer had any use for his pistol but could now run around and blast everything with the fat-man.