Fallout 3 Operation: Anchorage reviews

[Public]

The problem is that, today music is all about moneymoneymoney

The world is about moneymoneymoney, not music! Open your eyes a bit wider.

Art is whatever you want it to be. If you think modern music is art, then it is.

It's like saying "You think killing is okay? That's fine! Do it if you like it!"

For me having an idea is not art!

It's actually a first step.

Art is about the skills of the artist.

And what about imagination? Intelligence, open mind?

 

[SpeaK]

Re: Three Blue Blobs In A Row - - 'Cha-Ching'!!

The Masters of the Matrix know this all too well. If you can get the masses to believe something, then it can be made reality, even if it's based on a complete lie, which it usually is.

Nationalism, religion, economy (capitalism/socialism), etc. It's all one big game of mind, and hence reality, control.

Words of wisdom!

 

[programmer.craig]

People need to stop blaming Bethesda for doing what they are good at. They are about the only game company that I can think of that has never abandoned a successful recipe, and it shows in their continued success.

It isn't Bethesda's fault that Interplay self-destructed. That "History of fallout" article that got linked a couple posts back was highly inaccurate, and it's interesting that "industry insiders" not only failed to understand what they were doing wrong at the time, but continue to misunderstand the nature of the mistakes that were made, even after all these years. Fallout 2 was *wildly* successful by the standards of the day. You have to remember, in the late 1990s there were dozens of new games coming out every month... many were not even able to get placement on store shelves, and of those that were they rarely stayed on the shelf for more than a few weeks. Fallout 2 was still on store shelves a more than a year after it shipped. The demand was there, and the sales were there. The problem is that Interplay had already decided that it wanted to focus on publishing other people's games, by then. I seem to recollect the old mantra of "RPGs cost too much to develop, and the profits are too low to justify the effort" and blah blah blah. And look at Interplay now? Where would Bethesda be, if they'd believed RPGs cost too much to develop, and weren't worth the effort? They'd be a defunct company too.

Origin bit the dust when they got distracted by the success of Myst and other CD-based games. They gave up on their bread and butter, Ultima, and went chasing free money.

Interplay and Sirtech decided to become game publishers instead of game developers. Bye-bye, losers.

Sierra... who the hell knows what happened there?

I could go on, but it'd be boring and pointless. The companies that failed, were all companies that forgot what it was they knew how to do, and decided to try to chase other people's success stories. Instead of capitalizing on their own. I criticize Bioware a lot for making "interactive movies" instead of roleplaying games, but they make VERY GOOD interactive movies, and it might hose them up quite badly if they decided to try their hand at something else.

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of Fallout 3... I only got halfway through it (about 4 times lol) before I ran out of motivation to keep playing. I'm not their target audience, and I never have been. But Bethesda really doesn't deserve to be criticized for sticking to their guns(no pun intended!) and doing it their way. If I liked their recipe, I'd be singing their praises louder than anyone, for not succumbing to what must be a great deal of pressure to start playing mix-and-match in the endless quest for the lowest common denominator.

Then again, maybe they already found the lowest common denominator. That would certainly explain the "ghetto" interview

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Where would Bethesda be, if they'd believed RPGs cost too much to develop, and weren't worth the effort? They'd be a defunct company too.

They make FPS-ARPG hybrids and have been simplifying them ever since Daggerfall from what I understand. That said, they have stuck to making FPS-ARPG hybrids ever since Arena but they made successful FPS games before that (Terminator games). I'd be happy if they just made good quality games but Oblivion and Fallout 3 are certainly not that, they are average to mediocre quality-wise.

People need to stop blaming Bethesda for doing what they are good at. They are about the only game company that I can think of that has never abandoned a successful recipe, and it shows in their continued success.
<snip>
But Bethesda really doesn't deserve to be criticized for sticking to their guns(no pun intended!) and doing it their way. If I liked their recipe, I'd be singing their praises louder than anyone, for not succumbing to what must be a great deal of pressure to start playing mix-and-match in the endless quest for the lowest common denominator.

No one has a problem with Bethesda created IPs being made into what Bethesda does best, what people have a problem with is (regarding your comment, there are many more reasons) turning an IP with established gameplay into something entirely different and labeling it as a sequel. Hell, had the writing quality been up to snuff I think many people would have been content despite the mediocre gameplay (VtM:B is an example of a game which pretty much does this).

 

[programmer.craig]

UncannyGarlic,

They make FPS-ARPG hybrids and have been simplifying them ever since Daggerfall from what I understand. That said, they have stuck to making FPS-ARPG hybrids ever since Arena


I really hate to argue against claims I have made myself in the past, but that's unfair... mainly because there was no such thing as an FPS when Elder Scrolls: Arena came out. As I recall, Doom and Arena were out at the same time (~1993) and the FPS genre didn't come into being until people started trying to copy Doom, some time later. Same with "Action RPG", but moreso... that's a term that didn't even exist until Diablo came out in 1995 or so. Bethesda games appeal NOW to action RPG and FPS fans taht are looking for a little more, but that's not because Bethesda designed them with that in mind.

I'm not sure what you mean by "simpifying" - easier to play, or less complex? I'll agree they are easier than they used to be. But I'd argue they are far more complex. There is less randomly generated content in every iteration of their games, which in my opinion is a good thing.

but they made successful FPS games before that (Terminator games).


I actually played those lol. But I don't get the impression many other people did. I guess "successful" is a relative term. I think it's fairly safe to say those were not popular enough to merit continued development, though, right?

I'd be happy if they just made good quality games but Oblivion and Fallout 3 are certainly not that, they are average to mediocre quality-wise.


Quality of what? The graphics are good. The game engine is superb. The content is pretty drab and uninteresting. Obviously, a lot of people don't mind dull gameplay, as long as they get to blow $*&% up and make/download mods.

Personally, I think the Total War series are a better RPG value, and they are wargames. And free bonus... you get to mod those too, although nude mods are a little hard to do. And who would want to see all those gauls and romans running around naked, anyway?

No one has a problem with Bethesda created IPs being made into what Bethesda does best, what people have a problem with is (regarding your comment, there are many more reasons) turning an IP with established gameplay into something entirely different and labeling it as a sequel.


I would agree with that, if they had scalped Fallout from a developer who had serious intent and capability of continuing with the series. But they didn't. They bought it from a company who had decided to let it languish, because it wasn't worthy of investing money and time into.

Hell, had the writing quality been up to snuff I think many people would have been content despite the mediocre gameplay (VtM:B is an example of a game which pretty much does this).

Bethesda games have never had any meaningful content. It would have been absolutely effing amazing if Fallout 3 had been different. What do you think Bioware would have done with Fallout 3? Just curious, because I can't think of anyone else who would have even bothered with a Fallout game.

Anyway, bottom line is Fallout 3 is not on my all-time-great-games list. And I won't ever load it onto my hard-drive again, I'm sure. But I got my money's worth out of it, as I did with Oblivion. Maybe someday we can get a true spiritual successor to the Fallout/Wasteland games, from the European game studios. I'd be happy with that.

 

[4too]

Wave Mechanics

Wave Mechanics

... Bethesda games have never had any meaningful content. It would have been absolutely effing amazing if Fallout 3 had been different. What do you think Bioware would have done with Fallout 3? Just curious, because I can't think of anyone else who would have even bothered with a Fallout game. ...

There is the game in the box, and the game outside the box. Perhaps Shroedinger's Cat is Blue?
B-soft appears to be crafty enough to assemble a functional software artifact, and ride the wave of the medias in reading popular trends
and then dictating populist doctrine, of this day. Tomorrow the next 'genius' will be anointed.

Sure, B-soft has got the money, good for them.

Bioware?

I only care because others care enough to write interesting stuff. The sparring debates of the forums.

Ride the wave kids! Fame - Fortune - and Big Boobied Babes Await The Faithful !!1!!1







4too

 

[Crni Vuk]

UncannyGarlic,

I really hate to argue against claims I have made myself in the past, but that's unfair... mainly because there was no such thing as an FPS when Elder Scrolls: Arena came out. As I recall, Doom and Arena were out at the same time (~1993) and the FPS genre didn't come into being until people started trying to copy Doom, some time later. Same with "Action RPG", but moreso... that's a term that didn't even exist until Diablo came out in 1995 or so. Bethesda games appeal NOW to action RPG and FPS fans taht are looking for a little more, but that's not because Bethesda designed them with that in mind.

I think anyone can hardly say what they really had in "mind" when designing games. But they say they decision for "first person" is to make the game experience "more immersive" which is more or less a marketing word or buzz-word. A first person experience is a gameplay and thus not worse or better compared to a Top-down gameplay (for me personaly Fallout 1/2 even Jagged Alliance were a lot more immersive then any Bethesda game I played so far).

If you advice now that the first person gameplay with Arena/Daggerfall was not choosen intentionaly I think you are wrong. Developers have been always aware about this gameplay and it was used in RPGs for quite some time. Fallout 1/2 as well have been made in the Tourn Based/Top down gameplay for a reason and intentionaly as well. It is always to provide a expernience. Arenas/Daggerfalls experience was to provide something similar to a Rouque like game (or simply dungeon hack).

I'm not sure what you mean by "simpifying" - easier to play, or less complex? I'll agree they are easier than they used to be. But I'd argue they are far more complex. There is less randomly generated content in every iteration of their games, which in my opinion is a good thing.

By "symplifing" we simply talk from cases like the removall of "skills" they think are useless. Like for example climbing [and other skills] from Dagerfall to Morrowind, and the merging from axes, maces and hammers in to blunt weapons in Oblivion.

in Fallout 3 you have the "visible" skill check with a percentage which can be as well seen as hand holding. Or that a character with strength 1 and low hand-to-hand skills can beat in hand-to-hand combat 3-4 raiders if he has enough stimpacks (something you could not achieve neither in Fallout 1 or Fallout 2). They removed gambling and merged Doctor/first aid to "medicine". The different damage resitance known from Fallout 1/2 [Laser,Fire, etc.] have been removed and changed in to one general damage for Fallout 3. They did as well removed completly the traits and merged some of them in to the "perks" which you now get every level isntead of every third of fourth level, you have no more negative effect like in previous games and Fallout 3s version of "SPECIAL" is a lot more forgiving in general compared to Fallout 1/2.

 

[programmer.craig]

CV,

I think anyone can hardly say what they really had in "mind" when designing games.


Perhaps not, but we CAN say they weren't trying to copy first person shooters (FPS) or "Action RPG", because there was nothing to copy.

But they say they decision for "first person" is to make the game experience "more immersive" which is more or less a marketing word or buzz-word.


Right... so the original wasteland was first person too. As was the EOB series, Ultima Underworld, the Might & Magic series, etc.


A first person experience is a gameplay and thus not worse or better compared to a Top-down gameplay (for me personaly Fallout 1/2 even Jagged Alliance were a lot more immersive then any Bethesda game I played so far).


I agree with you on that. But it's a matter of preference, and the claim I disputed (that Bethesda decided to make FPS/Action RPG hybrids) is simply wrong.

If you advice now that the first person gameplay with Arena/Daggerfall was not choosen intentionaly I think you are wrong.


Well, that would be obviously a silly thing for anyone to claim. And, I never did

By "symplifing" we simply talk from cases like the removall of "skills" they think are useless. Like for example climbing [and other skills] from Dagerfall to Morrowind, and the merging from axes, maces and hammers in to blunt weapons in Oblivion.


And such things are ALSO a matter of preference, you know. I personally don't like anal-retentive rules that have no basis in logic, and seem to exist only to give the player more things to stress over. On the other hand, climbing and jumping can be important, depending on game design.

So, anyway, I'm still not buying the claim that Bethesda's new games are simplified versions of their old ones.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue about difficulty in Bethesda games. They aren't difficult enough, for me. None of them are. Morrowind did a little better than Oblivion in that you could wander into an area that was populated with critters that were far too powerful for you to have any chance against. But clever players could find ways to amp-up their characters right at the start (usually by finding ways to kill things they weren't supposed to be able to kill, and taking their stuff) and then the whole rest of the game became trivial.

But Bethesda is not alone in making easy-mode games. I haven't played an RPG that really gave me challenging gameplay since the 1990s. And you know what? Fallout 2 wasn't one of them.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

The different damage resitance known from Fallout 1/2 [Laser,Fire, etc.] have been removed and changed in to one general damage for Fallout 3.

Actually, they still exist, but they don't apear on the UI (stupid, stupid Bethesda). The problem is that they don't have Damage Thresheholds any more. This is why Power Armor is a piece of useless crap in the third one - PA had the same DR of Combat Armor in both Fallouts, but the DT was higher. This is the reason Power Armor was a walking tank that could take rifle shots and not even flinch. In the third one, there's no DT, which cripples PA.

 

[Crni Vuk]

CV,

I think anyone can hardly say what they really had in "mind" when designing games.


Perhaps not, but we CAN say they weren't trying to copy first person shooters (FPS) or "Action RPG", because there was nothing to copy.
...
But Bethesda is not alone in making easy-mode games. I haven't played an RPG that really gave me challenging gameplay since the 1990s. And you know what? Fallout 2 wasn't one of them.

Well I dont have the quote at the moment at my hands. But its floating somewhere around that both Hines and Todd (I think) mentioned to have played CoD and Halo to get their inspirations for the combat. Make out of that what you want. And Fallout 3 definetly resembles mechanics of "First person shooters". It is a game where you shoot in first person afterall. I dont know why people are so defensive about the description in Fallout 3 in relation with it.

But Bethesda is not alone in making easy-mode games. I haven't played an RPG that really gave me challenging gameplay since the 1990s. And you know what? Fallout 2 wasn't one of them.

Well no one said that its a issue only caused or present in games by Bethesda. Its a long story and pretty known fact that today games get easier and more simplified, if we are talking about "Block buster titles" that is. I have a lot of old RTS games around (from C&C to Age of Empires) and most of them if you play it on "difficult" settings ARE really almost unbeatable. Jagged Alliance 2 for example had a REAL iron made mode in its gameplay which meant that you are not allowd to make a savegame during combat.

If you take your time to search the discussions you will notice that a lot of people agree here that already Fallout 2 started to steer away from the concept of Fallout 1, with many of rather strange pop culture references and other issues (New Reno and its 30s stereotypical-mafia-gang references come to my mind). Van Buren, Interplays Fallout 3 was said by its developers would try to get back to Fallout 1s roots and have less silly references. If they really would succeed with it is another question, but everyone can get his hands on the design documents to get a own oppinion.

But comparing Fallout 1, 2 and Bethesdas Fallout 3 it's somewhat pretty obvious that Bethesdas Fallout is more forgiving in combat and gameplay (like with skill checks). I gave examples with the skill checks which is definetly hand holding by showing the "percentage" of success. And I will mention as well again characters which can have a descent game as hand-to-hand combat characters even with a strength of 1 or good spech skills with charisma of 1, which is cause of the simplified gameplay.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I would agree with that, if they had scalped Fallout from a developer who had serious intent and capability of continuing with the series. But they didn't. They bought it from a company who had decided to let it languish, because it wasn't worthy of investing money and time into.

Is this supposed to be a justification of some sort? There was no need for Bethesda to buy Fallout. There was no need for "Fallout 3" to be associated with Fallout at all. The people who like Bethesda's games would not have cared, because most of them aren't Fallout fans.

Fallout may have been dead before "Fallout 3" but now it's worse than dead. Now it's a profitable Bethesda property. It's like Pet Semetary where your cat comes back to life as a mockery posessed by evil spirits.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

The problem is that, today music is all about moneymoneymoney

The world is about moneymoneymoney, not music! Open your eyes a bit wider.

You just completely skipped my whole post and changed the topic. Thanks.

Basically, my definition of art is "something of high quality and aesthetical value that is not done for the sake of a material reward". It's not really about whether you get paid for it, but whether you do it to get paid. 99% of modern music is made to earn money. So there.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I really hate to argue against claims I have made myself in the past, but that's unfair... mainly because there was no such thing as an FPS when Elder Scrolls: Arena came out. As I recall, Doom and Arena were out at the same time (~1993) and the FPS genre didn't come into being until people started trying to copy Doom, some time later. Same with "Action RPG", but moreso... that's a term that didn't even exist until Diablo came out in 1995 or so. Bethesda games appeal NOW to action RPG and FPS fans that are looking for a little more, but that's not because Bethesda designed them with that in mind.

Yeah no, Doom was not the first FPS but I'll agree that it did give it a boost in popularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_shooter#Origins has the origins of the genre and Catacomb 3-D, released by id Software in 1991, was arguably the first modern FPS. Hell, I believe that all of the Terminator games that they made were FPSes, though I could be wrong here. Also note that Ultima Underworld came out in 1992. As for the ARPG term, it doesn't matter. The idea and games that used it had been around for a long time before Diablo and it's what Arena ended up doing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "simpifying" - easier to play, or less complex? I'll agree they are easier than they used to be. But I'd argue they are far more complex. There is less randomly generated content in every iteration of their games, which in my opinion is a good thing.

Simplifying as in "making less complex". The gameplay (mechanics, skills, etc.), setting, and plots. See Crni Vuk's post.

I actually played those lol. But I don't get the impression many other people did. I guess "successful" is a relative term. I think it's fairly safe to say those were not popular enough to merit continued development, though, right?

They made six Terminator games and re-released one as a deluxe version so no, they were popular enough. They probably stopped making them because the license was given to another company.

Quality of what? The graphics are good. The game engine is superb. The content is pretty drab and uninteresting. Obviously, a lot of people don't mind dull gameplay, as long as they get to blow $*&% up and make/download mods.

The graphics are good but nothing special, the animations are atrocious, the voice acting ranges from terrible to good, averaging out to mediocre, I can't speak for the engine but it's hardly new so I'd imagine that there are better things out there, the writing is atrocious, and, as you said, the gameplay is mediocre to bad. Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 were mediocre products with decent visuals. They have a lot of areas to improve on and if they can manage to be great at anything, I'll note it.

I would agree with that, if they had scalped Fallout from a developer who had serious intent and capability of continuing with the series. But they didn't. They bought it from a company who had decided to let it languish, because it wasn't worthy of investing money and time into.

Interplay had a nearly finished Fallout 3 and was working on Tactics 2 and BoS2. They sold the IP because they were in deep financial shit because their CEO is a moron. Bethesda bought it fair and square but since when does that excuse it? Uwe Boll doesn't get off the hook because he obtains licenses to videogames to make into movies legally, people bash him for making shitty movies which fail to capture the spirit of the IP being used.

Bethesda games have never had any meaningful content. It would have been absolutely effing amazing if Fallout 3 had been different. What do you think Bioware would have done with Fallout 3? Just curious, because I can't think of anyone else who would have even bothered with a Fallout game.

Troika, though they may have shut down due to money problems anyway. I don't know who else would have bid on it seeing as it never went to auction from what I know so it seems like a ridiculous argument. Still, Bioware would have done a better job with it, even if that had turned it into one of their interactive movies, because Bioware has people on staff who actually know something about RPGs. Would Bioware likely have screwed up some canon? Sure, but nothing like Bethesda and I doubt they would have had as much retarded amusement park crap (like the super villains or Little Lamplight). They also have better writers on staff and have had at least one game with good voice acting (Mass Effect).

Perhaps not, but we CAN say they weren't trying to copy first person shooters (FPS) or "Action RPG", because there was nothing to copy.

Well it's not true that there was nothing to copy but seeing as Arena originally started out as a gladiatorial combat game and completely changed, it's fair to say that they weren't intentionally outright cloning another game. Still, the wikipedia article states: "They were also fans of Looking Glass Studios' Ultima Underworld series, which became their main inspiration for Arena." As for Fallout 3, multiple developers including the leads listed CoD4, Halo, and other FPSes as influences and they just modified the Oblivion engine to work for Fallout 3 so it's not like they started with a clear slate on that.

Right... so the original wasteland was first person too. As was the EOB series, Ultima Underworld, the Might & Magic series, etc.

The only part of Wasteland that's FPP is the conversations, big part of the game, if I remember right. Still, that'd be like calling Fallout a FPP game.

I agree with you on that. But it's a matter of preference, and the claim I disputed (that Bethesda decided to make FPS/Action RPG hybrids) is simply wrong.

How is it wrong? Arena was a FPS/ARPG hybrid, not something originally intended but what it became over the design process. After that, every TES game was consciously made to have the same basic gameplay as Arena and they stated from the start that they were going to do the same thing with Fallout 3 that they do with TES, so it was a FPS/ARPG hybrid from day 0.

And such things are ALSO a matter of preference, you know. I personally don't like anal-retentive rules that have no basis in logic, and seem to exist only to give the player more things to stress over. On the other hand, climbing and jumping can be important, depending on game design.

Simplifying can be used to improve a game (like combining First Aid and Doctor into one skill) but it can also be damaging (such as removing different damage resistances in Fallout 3). Bethesda does a lot more of the latter than the former and the former is not always the only or best way to solve a problem. Instead of combining First Aid and Doctor they could have made them more distinct and useful.

So, anyway, I'm still not buying the claim that Bethesda's new games are simplified versions of their old ones.

So Oblivion and Fallout 3 (a little harder to compare) are equally or more complex than Morrowind and Daggerfall?

But Bethesda is not alone in making easy-mode games. I haven't played an RPG that really gave me challenging gameplay since the 1990s. And you know what? Fallout 2 wasn't one of them.

Just because they are not the only perpetrators of a problem doesn't excuse them from it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I dont think that merging doctor and first aid was really a that good choice, just as a side note. Not that it doesnt bother me that much that you have it all in "medicine" now. But I think it somewhat was important to the aspect of role playing since a few times a high doctor skill granted you aditional skill checks and dialogue choices like the improvements in Vault City that you would only get with a Doctor skill check if I am sure. But it seems anyway that Bethesda gives "role playing" a back seat in Fallout 3 in favour for the "combat".

What is just strange is that a action RPG like Fallout 3 today can get sold without issues as "hardcore" RPG. And the fun thing is. People buy it as that. [not that I like the term "Hardcore" for RPGs anyway since I think not the "deep" RPGs are "hardcore" but the others just "light"]

 

[Ausir]

Medicine and Doctor as separate skills never made sense, especially given the wide range of things skills like Science cover. And they were going to be merged in Van Buren too.

Interplay had a nearly finished Fallout 3 and was working on Tactics 2 and BoS2.

Tactics 2 was canned in 2001.

Troika, though they may have shut down due to money problems anyway.

Partly because they failed to acquire the Fallout license. If Bethesda hadn't bought it, Troika and Activision could have, and then the company would survive at least a while longer.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Medicine and Doctor as separate skills never made sense, especially given the wide range of things skills like Science cover. And they were going to be merged in Van Buren too.
...

It made sense to me from a role playing aspect, since it was first aid and not medicine

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Tactics 2 was canned in 2001.

My bad.

It made sense to me from a role playing aspect, since it was first aid and not medicine

Well it makes sense that you're character can know first-aid but not have more extensive medical knowledge like a doctor but if you're character is proficient at doctor then they would know first-aid. Given how SPECIAL works, it makes more since to combine them then to keep them seperate, it's not like it's overpowering to combine them.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, technically you could use Doctor to heal small injuries too, kind of like First Aid. TBH it makes no difference either way though.

 

[Ausir]

Well it makes sense that you're character can know first-aid but not have more extensive medical knowledge like a doctor but if you're character is proficient at doctor then they would know first-aid. Given how SPECIAL works, it makes more since to combine them then to keep them seperate, it's not like it's overpowering to combine them.

First aid can simply be a low-level application of the same skill high level applications of which are used to heal serious injuries. Just like low small guns is enough to hit an enemy, but you need high level of the skill to effectively shoot him in the eyes. Or hacking a simple terminal vs. hacking a supercomputer.

 

[Marxus Tiamat]

Partly because they failed to acquire the Fallout license. If Bethesda hadn't bought it, Troika and Activision could have, and then the company would survive at least a while longer.

Seeing as how Activision treated VtmB, then F3 by Troika would have been a half-finished buggy mess. Not the best thing for a sequel to a classic but still better then BS-s asploading heads boomfest.