Fallout 3 not silly

If we get to the point... drinking water from toilets and having a reduced dialog system is pretty silly too... or can we say that we can get an interesting speech from a "Oblivion-Style dialog systems".

Oh, mini-tactical nukes looks pretty like a ten Y/O child invention that is playing with his toys. And don't tell me that isn't silly...


Nim82 said:
Their core audience wouldn't know what 'venereal' meant anyway.
Click to expand...

^^

Silencer said:
Well, that WOULD carry an important social message. Props to the U.S. sex ed system if your 12-year-olds actually KNOW about veneral diseases.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you are saying that the PRODUCERS-- i mean, GAME PRODUCERS educate with their games??? Are you insane???

it's a simple equation, Less education, More Inmershion!!!. And i bet you want inmersion in a game, because if you don't have inmersion, you are playing space invaders...
 
I can see the logic in taking out eye shots. I mean, how often does a bullet destroy an eyeball and not the brain inches away from it? That, to me, is an acceptable loss.

Groin shots, however, make sense. The messages you'd get for giving or receiving them were silly (and funny), but that doesn't make them any less of a viable option in any firefight where your top priority is living.

Call me cynical, but I think there is more to taking groin shots out than "it's too silly!". I think it might be a proactive measure to keep mommy ESRB off their trembling backs.

Remember when they claimed to be having an internal debate over whether or not we should be able to kill kids? At the end, they just justified their decision with "do you really want to kill children?". It's the same kind of deal, here. They're sacrificing more roleplaying options for reasons unknown to us and justifying it with a straw man fallacy.
 
RhymeBomb said:
I can see the logic in taking out eye shots. I mean, how often does a bullet destroy an eyeball and not the brain inches away from it?
Click to expand...
Oppose that to head shots. Head shots often do miss the brain and are often not deadly (or blinding). A head shot is aimed at a bigger portion of the body than an eye shot, but has less of an effect.
 
More importantly, as people have noted eye and groin attacks are much more relevant for mêlée attacks. So far Beth and previewers have only been talking about called shots and playing them out automatically after you queue up attacks. What about close combat? Can you queue up attacks, then watch the AI handle your character negotiating whatever terrain features separate you from the enemy, then smashing their shin, then their ear with a wrench or something? Well, at least we know eyes and groins are not the things a serious warrior goes for.
 
RhymeBomb said:
I can see the logic in taking out eye shots. I mean, how often does a bullet destroy an eyeball and not the brain inches away from it? That, to me, is an acceptable loss.
Click to expand...

Yeah...Well...Then, screw the ability to blind somebody with a knife in melee combat, right ?
 
I kind of missed a cog in the logic to remove eye-shots, anyway.

The story is "If you hit the eye, you expect to blow someone's brains out."

Ok, fair enough...but then what's the logical conclusion? "You can't aim for eyes..."

...

...

What?

Seriously, what?

If the problem is that eye-shots would have a 100% kill-rate, why not leave them in with a 65% to-hit penalty? That way, only absolute experts could go for the eyes outside of close combat, and even they wouldn't have a 95% to hit rate. But when they do hit, splatter!

Makes sense to me.
 
God dammit BN, you simply don't understand the foundation of next-gen games... and that is- dumbing down.
Everything has to be simple, there can't be too many places to shoot at because poor causal gamers and oblivionites (target audience, huh?) like simple stuff.

I can see the logic in taking out eye shots. I mean, how often does a bullet destroy an eyeball and not the brain inches away from it? That, to me, is an acceptable loss.
Click to expand...
Meh, to me, Fallout never was too realistic... I mean, some people without armor even survived torso-shots from combat shotgun- won't happen in real life, I think.
If Fallout was as realistic as, say, Operation Flashpoint I think combat would be much more fast and (oh irony) boring.
 
You mean the areas you can aim at can't exceed the number of buttons on an XBox controller pad?

Makes sense.
 
Wow. Despite my preference for using melee characters in FO1 and FO2, I completely overlooked that. Goddamnit. Just when I thought Beth had made a reasonable change...
 
Oh yeah, I didn't think about it (I don't own any console :<) but that makes sense, too.
Anyway, it just shows how good is consolization for oldschool crpgs like Fallout.
Though it's a shame that Fallout has to be (with Deus Ex 2 among other games) an example how consolization affects games.

Despite my preference for using melee characters in FO1 and FO2, I completely overlooked that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what you get for playing with CHAWKLIT REIGN!
 
So...

Groin shots are silly, but a sign surviving a nuclear war just so the player can giggle at a swear isn't?

Someone please tell me I'm in the Twilight Zone or a coma or something, because my brain is starting to hurt!
 
generalissimofurioso said:
So...

Groin shots are silly, but a sign surviving a nuclear war just so the player can giggle at a swear isn't?
Click to expand...
A frikkin robot, Mr. Handy which calls you 'stupid git' isn't silly either.

Someone please tell me I'm in the Twilight Zone or a coma or something, because my brain is starting to hurt!
Click to expand...

No, you're not. Welcome to the future... I mean present but with next-gens everywhere.
 
Black said:
A frikkin robot, Mr. Handy which calls you 'stupid git' isn't silly either.

No, you're not. Welcome to the future... I mean present but with next-gens everywhere.
Click to expand...

Part of me wants this game to come out so that Fallout won't die, the other half wants it to burn in a giant grease fire so that people won't think that Bethesda is the mighty king of what Fallout is...

All I know is that this is all of this garbage is going into the big-big list of the things I'm going to mock horrendously in DeathKill and Blood-Gun
 
Black said:
If Fallout was as realistic as, say, Operation Flashpoint I think combat would be much more fast and (oh irony) boring.
Click to expand...
What are you basing this assumption on?
 
generalissimofurioso said:
Part of me wants this game to come out so that Fallout won't die, the other half wants it to burn in a giant grease fire so that people won't think that Bethesda is the mighty king of what Fallout is...
Click to expand...

I would like to say that the gathering hypestorm around Fallout 3 might spur more people to play FO1/FO2. However, I'm not sure who's publishing Fallout 1 and 2, if at all. I doubt Bethsoft will, since it looks like they've gutted the setting for FO3 and won't want more people catching them on that.

Isn't there a Fallout DVD compilation out there? And who's the publisher?
 
I'm going to represent the guys and say that we wouldn't consider getting kicked in our diseased groin to be silly.
 
Havlock said:
Isn't there a Fallout DVD compilation out there? And who's the publisher?
Click to expand...
Yes there is. Publisher is "Global Software Publishing." Also shows "GSP" and "White Label" on the case. Not too knowledgeable about who is doing what there.
 
Emil is doing his darnest to stoop down to the Toddlers level and he's doing a damn fine job of it. He's now lost all DDD respect points (TM), as little of them as he had to begin with for making the least crappy part of Oblivion.
 
Sorrow said:
Black said:
If Fallout was as realistic as, say, Operation Flashpoint I think combat would be much more fast and (oh irony) boring.
Click to expand...
What are you basing this assumption on?
Click to expand...

I liked FO's combat. If people would die from 1-2 shots it'd be kind of too fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top