archont
It Wandered In From the Wastes
warsaw said:
Asploding heads.
Fallout 3: Quests
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Asploding heads.
To be fair, if they only took Fallout 2 as a reference, they merely did what Fallout 2 did with the franchise, just on a different order of magnitude.
Anybody remember how much whining there was about Fallout 2 being a travesty because of New Reno and all the other random theme parks and one-liner in-jokes? By comparison to Fallout 3 now, Fallout 2 was the shining epitome of cohesion.
Anybody remember how much whining there was about Fallout 2 being a travesty because of New Reno and all the other random theme parks and one-liner in-jokes? By comparison to Fallout 3 now, Fallout 2 was the shining epitome of cohesion.
Think about it ... how would have people considered Falout 2 and compared it to Fallout 1 ifsomeone would have allowed them a small short view to the ... Future ... fuuture ... *small rustling noice* [note the "XY is unconcious ...]Ashmo said:
bonustime
First time out of the vault
The other difference is that as far as game mechanics/game interface goes Fallout 2 was a definite improvement over the first one.
It can be argued that the first person perspective etc is an improvement but really that is more a matter of preference in my opinion.
But the game mechanics regarding character building have taken a HUGE step back.
It can be argued that the first person perspective etc is an improvement but really that is more a matter of preference in my opinion.
But the game mechanics regarding character building have taken a HUGE step back.
mountaingoat
First time out of the vault
M-26-7 said:
Up to a point i agree with your thoughts about malleability of human nature,but what i was trying to point out is the game doesn't take note of your choices/actions during almost your whole play-through (the Megaton/ Tenpenny quest for instance, doesn't mentioned at all in the end, although it carries a huge Karmic impact) apart from your last minute decisions, and this is an indication IMO of bad game design if we are talking about particular RPGs that take place in the Fallout universe.
Ixyroth said:
QFT
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
I just gave Fable a try, after reading an article here that linked to the Edge awards, where Fable II won game of the year. I don't know why I did, because I knew it was made by Peter Molyneux, and I've been dabbling with his games since Syndicate (early 1990s). All of his games suffer from the same problem. Too much qewtie-pie, not enough depth. His games would be FANTASTIC if he actually went the distance and fleshed out his ideas, but he never does. It takes about 5 minutes to get tired of a particular cute feature, for me. That means in a Peter Molyniex game I've seen all the cute features, and gotten tired of them, in ~5 hours. What am I supposed to do then, when that is all that there is to the game? Play the rest of it, even though there's nothing left for me to see and there's nothing else under the hood? Why do people keep giving this guy awards? I don't get it. Or maybe I do. Check out this Fable II fansite:
http://www.projectego.net/fable-2/
See how much they rave about the game being "immersive" and how "accessible" it is? Accessible is a code word for: retarded people and 10 year olds can beat the game, easily. Immersive is a code word for: extraordinarily shallow gameplay, but the eye candy is not bad. Both leftovers from the 1990s. Apparently, there are a lot of people who like shallow games that a retarded 10 year old can beat, playing a few hours a week casually, while drooling on his keyboard.
Anyway, so I'm going to cut Fallout some slack now. At least Bethesda is trying. Which is more than Peter Molyniex can claim. Although he seems so fixated on making cute games for adult children that I guess I ought to be happy for his recent successes. But I'm not, because my karma is bad that way. Damn Peter Molyniex and all the retarded 10 year old adult children who like his games to hell. Why can't the PC platform be a completely separate industry from console gaming, like it used to be? And I suppose I should be damning Everquest too, even though I loved the hell out of EQ for a couple years... that was the end of the single-player PC game.
So... yeah... kudos to the reviewer for at least playing Fallout enough to get that far in! Read a few too many "reviews" that seem to be based entirely on playing the first main storyline mission, and used the Gospel according to Bethesda to fill in the gaps. I guess too many game reviewers are retarded adult children too, mebbe. If it takes more than a few hours to get there, they'll never see it. Do game magazines just throw a brick into a crowd when they need to hire a new journalist, by any chance? There must be a few people who actually like computer games who have an interest in writing, no? How much can one earn by putting in a few hours a month to play a game and review it for a magazine, anyway?
http://www.projectego.net/fable-2/
See how much they rave about the game being "immersive" and how "accessible" it is? Accessible is a code word for: retarded people and 10 year olds can beat the game, easily. Immersive is a code word for: extraordinarily shallow gameplay, but the eye candy is not bad. Both leftovers from the 1990s. Apparently, there are a lot of people who like shallow games that a retarded 10 year old can beat, playing a few hours a week casually, while drooling on his keyboard.
Anyway, so I'm going to cut Fallout some slack now. At least Bethesda is trying. Which is more than Peter Molyniex can claim. Although he seems so fixated on making cute games for adult children that I guess I ought to be happy for his recent successes. But I'm not, because my karma is bad that way. Damn Peter Molyniex and all the retarded 10 year old adult children who like his games to hell. Why can't the PC platform be a completely separate industry from console gaming, like it used to be? And I suppose I should be damning Everquest too, even though I loved the hell out of EQ for a couple years... that was the end of the single-player PC game.
So... yeah... kudos to the reviewer for at least playing Fallout enough to get that far in! Read a few too many "reviews" that seem to be based entirely on playing the first main storyline mission, and used the Gospel according to Bethesda to fill in the gaps. I guess too many game reviewers are retarded adult children too, mebbe. If it takes more than a few hours to get there, they'll never see it. Do game magazines just throw a brick into a crowd when they need to hire a new journalist, by any chance? There must be a few people who actually like computer games who have an interest in writing, no? How much can one earn by putting in a few hours a month to play a game and review it for a magazine, anyway?
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
Agreed! I actually prefer top-down views for RPGs, and always have. It's been so long since I played one that had a well done implementation of that mode that I'm not 100% sure that's still true, though.
Also agreed. This has taken a huge step back in comparison to Oblivion, as well. It seems they stripped out most the character development from Oblivion, but didn't bother to flesh out the Fallout mechanics. I honestly can't see much difference between one character build and another, except in places where there are hardcode perk/skill checks. Lockpicking, for instance... either your skill is high enough, or it isn't.
To get back onto the Karma thing... I like the concept. I even like Bethesda's implementation of the concept. What I don't like are the arbitrary and seemingly illogical actions that award +/- karma. I restarted a few times, and on one of those I decided to play with being max-evil. First stop, Paradise falls for the mesmetron. I had to enslave about 15 raiders before I slid as far down the scale as possible. My first play through, I made the mistake of stealing all the empty whiskey bottles from Dukov's house. Ammo for the rock-it launcher and all. Stealing ~200 empty whiskey bottles got me to max evil. And enslaving 15 people got me to max evil. *shrug*
They also made a serious mistake by making it so easy to get positive karma. Giving water to a beggar compensates for committing murders? Excuse me? Bethesda developers should get serious bad karma for promoting such a warped sense of morality in a computer game, in my opinion.
Going to disagree with the praise for the Tenpenny tower quest. There's "Moral Ambiguity" and then there is lying to/fooling the reader/player. The Tenpenny Tower quest pulls the rug out from under the player.
[spoiler:20d0ba6210]
Sure, at first you are presented with the choice of either helping Tenpenny eradicate the Ghouls- or helping Roy and his Ghouls(who are presumably at the end of their rope) to turn the tables and sic feral ghouls on the residents of the tower by opening an underground passage into the tower for them. The third option is to broker a peace for the people of both parties by convincing the more bigoted residents of the tower to leave and then getting the more tolerant residents to endorse the addition of Roy and his Ghouls to their population.
So you opt for decision three, and no sooner than arriving back at the tower you find that Roy has killed Tenpenny(presumably in some horrible fashion- if you follow the blood trail leading from the meeting room of his suite back to the bathtub where some of his remains are still swirling around the drain.)
You can ask Roy about it and he says that they had a "disagreement". Okay, well Tenpenny was an asshole anyway- who cares, right? The tower will probably benefit under the rule of someone different now that all the bigots are gone right? Wrong! Show up again 24 hours later, and you'll find that all of the human residents are now dead and their bodies are stuffed in the basement.
[/spoiler:20d0ba6210]
That's where I called bullshit.
Moral ambiguity needs to come from the informed choices you make. As the game is a work of fiction- you only know what the author is willing to show/tell you from the point of view of your character. The consequences need to follow logically based on those decisions. The outcome of the third decision is not moral ambiguity- it's a plot twist- and a rather shitty one to be honest. It's the quest designer kicking you in the balls after making your decision and saying "Ha! Ha! Fooled you!".
Giving the player a third choice, which, after the fact, turns out to be very similar to the other choices, is really no choice at all. It's NOT the same "shades of grey" style of quest making that the Fallout series was famous for. It's just dishonest quest design.
Tenpenny Tower is nothing but bait and switch that leaves the player feeling like they wasted their time and effort for nothing. Why spend so much time developing a quest area (by extension- why play it?) if the best thing you can do for the world(assuming your character wants to do no harm) is to completely bypass it?
A better example of a morally ambiguous quest would be the Tranquility Lane quest. You're presented with two clear sets of choices- neither of them good- fully knowing the consequences before making them. The motivation behind the choices differs even though the consequence is the same.
Tenpenny would have been better had the third(false) choice not been given to the player. Or maybe the third choice should have been to help nobody at all. The third "good" option is just a thumb in the eye of players wanting to follow a "good" moral compass.
Just another attempt by Bethesda to be edgy- which utterly fails.
[spoiler:20d0ba6210]
Sure, at first you are presented with the choice of either helping Tenpenny eradicate the Ghouls- or helping Roy and his Ghouls(who are presumably at the end of their rope) to turn the tables and sic feral ghouls on the residents of the tower by opening an underground passage into the tower for them. The third option is to broker a peace for the people of both parties by convincing the more bigoted residents of the tower to leave and then getting the more tolerant residents to endorse the addition of Roy and his Ghouls to their population.
So you opt for decision three, and no sooner than arriving back at the tower you find that Roy has killed Tenpenny(presumably in some horrible fashion- if you follow the blood trail leading from the meeting room of his suite back to the bathtub where some of his remains are still swirling around the drain.)
You can ask Roy about it and he says that they had a "disagreement". Okay, well Tenpenny was an asshole anyway- who cares, right? The tower will probably benefit under the rule of someone different now that all the bigots are gone right? Wrong! Show up again 24 hours later, and you'll find that all of the human residents are now dead and their bodies are stuffed in the basement.
[/spoiler:20d0ba6210]
That's where I called bullshit.
Moral ambiguity needs to come from the informed choices you make. As the game is a work of fiction- you only know what the author is willing to show/tell you from the point of view of your character. The consequences need to follow logically based on those decisions. The outcome of the third decision is not moral ambiguity- it's a plot twist- and a rather shitty one to be honest. It's the quest designer kicking you in the balls after making your decision and saying "Ha! Ha! Fooled you!".
Giving the player a third choice, which, after the fact, turns out to be very similar to the other choices, is really no choice at all. It's NOT the same "shades of grey" style of quest making that the Fallout series was famous for. It's just dishonest quest design.
Tenpenny Tower is nothing but bait and switch that leaves the player feeling like they wasted their time and effort for nothing. Why spend so much time developing a quest area (by extension- why play it?) if the best thing you can do for the world(assuming your character wants to do no harm) is to completely bypass it?
A better example of a morally ambiguous quest would be the Tranquility Lane quest. You're presented with two clear sets of choices- neither of them good- fully knowing the consequences before making them. The motivation behind the choices differs even though the consequence is the same.
Tenpenny would have been better had the third(false) choice not been given to the player. Or maybe the third choice should have been to help nobody at all. The third "good" option is just a thumb in the eye of players wanting to follow a "good" moral compass.
Just another attempt by Bethesda to be edgy- which utterly fails.
Well, Roy seems very eager to murder the residents of Tenpenny Tower. I wouldn't say that it's not an informed decision, it's just that the rest of the game makes you accustomed to the fact that you're not being lied to. And the inhabitants of Tenpenny Towers tell you repeatedly that letting in ghouls would be dangerous - it just turns out that they are at least partially right.
Ausir said:
[spoiler:caeb105e62]The quest's first exposition starts off with Roy asking for himself, and the other ghouls under his protection, to be given the opportunity to live(they aren't demanding tribute or free stays- they are willing to pay their way) at Tenpenny tower- after which he is told to "fuck off" over the intercom. Yes, at this moment, it's safe to say he's murderous. but he doesn't lash out at you in passing even so.
Later on, having cooled down some, Roy says he wants to set the feral ghouls on the tower, and its residents, because his own people are desperate to find a safe place, and they were shut out of Tenpenny for mutation-based discrimination. All of which is true. So far.
So yes, Roy is contemplating taking the "law" into his own hands, by busting his way into the tower with the ghouls, when you meet back up with him in the underground. But still, only contemplating.
As characters go, It says a lot that 1) Roy doesn't shoot you on sight, and 2) after allowing you to explain yourself, he is actually willing to give you the time, and the chance, to broker a deal for his faction. To me, this shows that violence is an option of last resort for Roy. After trying diplomacy and having failed miserably, he is still willing to give peace another try on the off chance that someone else can have more success where he didn't.
So far that's fine and everything is still on the table for the player to see. So far...
Where it goes awry, is that after sealing the bargain and following Roy and co. back to the Tower, you find that Tenpenny is automatically killed. It's taken out of the player's hands completely. The least they could have done was to give you the opportunity of negotiating, participating in, or stopping the murder in some way whilst playing out those events in game time. But no, it comes completely from offstage and you're simply expected to deal with it as a fait accompli. Just stupid.
But wait, there's more! Not only has Roy killed Tenpenny but, somehow, he's managed to do this without tipping off the guard right outside the doorway. This would have been all the reason Gustavo would have needed to start opening fire on anything even remotely resembling a ghoul. You may have delivered a peace of sorts- but Gustavo and his men never stood down or disarmed. And while they do follow the bottlecaps- they still adhere to their own prejudices.
Yet, 24 hours later, you come back and the bodies are piled high in the basement- tidy as kiss your hand, and there are no signs anywhere of the struggle that must have(maybe?) ensued. It's sloppy, lazy, and idiotic writing that insults the player's intelligence whilst, at the same time, bludgeoning them over the head with a contrivance they have no way to avoid- all of it after the fact.
At that rate, why not have Roy Phillips's head explode shortly after the "fuck off' over the intercom? After which, you can hear Tenpenny holler, "BOOM! HEADSHOT!" from the top of his tower after dispatching Roy with his signature sniper rifle. [/spoiler:caeb105e62]
Regardless of where in your travels you decide to take this little detour, it can negatively colour your perceptions and expectations for the rest of the experience thereafter. Assuming, of course, that you weren't already negatively biased on your way in to begin with.
The root of the problem here is that the reader, or player, should never be lied to by an author, and shouldn't have to become accustomed to being lied to either. And if the author decides to do it anyway- it's still going to be a damned tough(one could argue almost impossible) sell. If this happens, the rest of the story, and the author, lose all credibility. All snide remarks about Bethesda and Howard aside, it's why lying to the reader/player is always a no-no.
Kreia, oh Kreia, where are you...
Yes, and this is why that part of the quest is basically the best example of Fallout-worthy writing in that game.Ausir said:
People don't always get along, some people are simply assholes, your choices have consequences, and things aren't always as simple as they seem.
The problem isn't what happens, the problem is that the entire game has been built around a wholly different idea: people do get along if you try, no one is really an asshole but those who are can be dealt with and are unimportant, your choices don't really have consequences, and things are almost always as simple as they seem.
The idea itself is very good, though, and similar to what would have happened to Junktown in the original game had the management not stepped in and said 'You must have good rewards for good deeds'. For those who don't know, Killian would've turn Junktown into a fascist, oppressive little town while Gizmo would've created a well-run, liberal, prosperous town.
Iozeph, I respectfully disagree. You say "Moral ambiguity needs to come from the informed choices you make", but that doesn't always need to be the case... and for TT, you *are* informed.
When you speak to Roy Philipps and Michael Masters, it is very very clear that they intend to 'payback' the Tenpenny residents as a whole as soon as they get in there. There is always a very good chance that if you help them get in, they will do anything inbetween going "BOO" from behind the curtain to total massacre. I think it's actually good that if you are naive enough, or take the informed risk of, letting Roy & co in the tower, they will take you up on the offer and wreak havoc. That is actually a very good case of choice and consequences. You felt sorry for the ghouls, you felt like being 'tolerant' and let them in? Well, they just killed the humans. Sucks to be you.
Bethesda tried to translate the modern world racism debate into ghouls v. humans, and for the most part it's silly, but that particular decision is spot on. Racism is complicated because it's not "X hates Y, X are bigots, Y are innocent chums". Games too often reward being nicey-nice and tolerant "let's all get along"... in this case you tried being 'liberal' about it, but hey, it was realistic that this particular group of ghouls were going to do something like that.
And what about those choices? Young seems to complain that every option presented to the player is bad. What? That's great! Why would there always be "The Best Option"? Now, I fully support the idea that there should have been the option to, say, try and persuade Roy that where he is living now is actually pretty nice, or that he could always go to Underworld. But those options should either have been impossible, or require a very very high skill check. Because Roy is already personally pissed with the Tenpenny fellows, and rather than risk a long trek across the Wasteland or simply make the best of what he has in that sewer while the Tenpenny guys live it up next door, he's always going to be strongly inclined to push on with his plan. Look at his personality, a mix of righteousness, entitlement, condescension and hatred. It would be silly if you, some random stranger human, cuold easily persuade him to just drop his plan or go off to Underworld.
You look at the *way* he talks and *how* he treats you, and no, it's very clear that non-violence is an option of last resort for Roy. He is very clearly going to have a lot of fun murdering Tenpenny & co and teaching them a bloody lesson.
I do agree with this part, 'automatic scripted kill' is very Oblivionish and silly. They could have made it 'real-time', and the player could have intervened.
They didn't lie, it was quite obvious. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with NPCs lying to the character every once in a while, as long as there is a clear motivation and reason for doing so. In this case, there is.
The tenpenny quest as it stands sends you the message that not everything done with good intentions will result in 'good'; that you alone cannot always change the Wasteland; that people will lie to you or refuse to listen to you; that sometimes there is no best option, and you can't always fix the problem. That is very Fallouty and very satisfying for me.
There are problems with the Tenpenny area in terms of lack of subsistence / economic model, the lack of proper motivation in Alistair Tenpenny and Mr. Burke (though they tried to explain that away with a pseudo-hedonistic style for the former), and so forth, but it is not fundamentally flawed - it is one of the better, more Fallouty sidequests in FO3.
Conversely, what I really would have liked, and what I expected, was an elaboration and development of the relationship between Mr. Burke and Alistair Tenpenny. Alistair comments that Mr Burke is very willing to make Alistair's "rich-spoiled-man" whims happen, and that Alistair has now delegated most things to Mr. Burke. I fully expected an interesting storyline to develop here - i.e. what is Burke's motive, and does he plan to off Tenpenny? What makes Tenpenny so rich and powerful that Burke would go to these lengths? What would Burke think about the ghoul problem? And where does the player fit in - does Burke see him/her as only a 'part-time mercenary' and doesn't want the player around afterwards, as that is a risk to his plans, or does Burke want more from you (i.e. the assassination of Tenpenny)? But no, they turn into mannequins after the big explosion.
When you speak to Roy Philipps and Michael Masters, it is very very clear that they intend to 'payback' the Tenpenny residents as a whole as soon as they get in there. There is always a very good chance that if you help them get in, they will do anything inbetween going "BOO" from behind the curtain to total massacre. I think it's actually good that if you are naive enough, or take the informed risk of, letting Roy & co in the tower, they will take you up on the offer and wreak havoc. That is actually a very good case of choice and consequences. You felt sorry for the ghouls, you felt like being 'tolerant' and let them in? Well, they just killed the humans. Sucks to be you.
Bethesda tried to translate the modern world racism debate into ghouls v. humans, and for the most part it's silly, but that particular decision is spot on. Racism is complicated because it's not "X hates Y, X are bigots, Y are innocent chums". Games too often reward being nicey-nice and tolerant "let's all get along"... in this case you tried being 'liberal' about it, but hey, it was realistic that this particular group of ghouls were going to do something like that.
And what about those choices? Young seems to complain that every option presented to the player is bad. What? That's great! Why would there always be "The Best Option"? Now, I fully support the idea that there should have been the option to, say, try and persuade Roy that where he is living now is actually pretty nice, or that he could always go to Underworld. But those options should either have been impossible, or require a very very high skill check. Because Roy is already personally pissed with the Tenpenny fellows, and rather than risk a long trek across the Wasteland or simply make the best of what he has in that sewer while the Tenpenny guys live it up next door, he's always going to be strongly inclined to push on with his plan. Look at his personality, a mix of righteousness, entitlement, condescension and hatred. It would be silly if you, some random stranger human, cuold easily persuade him to just drop his plan or go off to Underworld.
You look at the *way* he talks and *how* he treats you, and no, it's very clear that non-violence is an option of last resort for Roy. He is very clearly going to have a lot of fun murdering Tenpenny & co and teaching them a bloody lesson.
I do agree with this part, 'automatic scripted kill' is very Oblivionish and silly. They could have made it 'real-time', and the player could have intervened.
They didn't lie, it was quite obvious. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with NPCs lying to the character every once in a while, as long as there is a clear motivation and reason for doing so. In this case, there is.
The tenpenny quest as it stands sends you the message that not everything done with good intentions will result in 'good'; that you alone cannot always change the Wasteland; that people will lie to you or refuse to listen to you; that sometimes there is no best option, and you can't always fix the problem. That is very Fallouty and very satisfying for me.
There are problems with the Tenpenny area in terms of lack of subsistence / economic model, the lack of proper motivation in Alistair Tenpenny and Mr. Burke (though they tried to explain that away with a pseudo-hedonistic style for the former), and so forth, but it is not fundamentally flawed - it is one of the better, more Fallouty sidequests in FO3.
Conversely, what I really would have liked, and what I expected, was an elaboration and development of the relationship between Mr. Burke and Alistair Tenpenny. Alistair comments that Mr Burke is very willing to make Alistair's "rich-spoiled-man" whims happen, and that Alistair has now delegated most things to Mr. Burke. I fully expected an interesting storyline to develop here - i.e. what is Burke's motive, and does he plan to off Tenpenny? What makes Tenpenny so rich and powerful that Burke would go to these lengths? What would Burke think about the ghoul problem? And where does the player fit in - does Burke see him/her as only a 'part-time mercenary' and doesn't want the player around afterwards, as that is a risk to his plans, or does Burke want more from you (i.e. the assassination of Tenpenny)? But no, they turn into mannequins after the big explosion.
Grey_Ghost
First time out of the vault
I must have been enjoying Fallout 2 so much I was oblivious to any such hullabaloo (OMG, was I a Black Isle/Fallout fanboi like the Oblivion/Bethesda crowd?!). I honestly only became aware of it years later, which makes me feel so awkward and junk.Ashmo said:
I love both the Fallout games dearly, and thankfully no ones bitching has ever changed that. Though, I do feel slightly apart from the core community sometimes. For instance, the Fallout 2 bottle cap issue.
Genma:TheDestroyer
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Slaughter Manslaught said:
Actually, she says why when you ask her "Why don't you disarm it". In her mind, the bomb isn't hurting anyone just sitting there, and disarming it would be kinda mean to its followers.
Oh Moira, no wonder so many people kill you.
mountaingoat
First time out of the vault
Iozeph said:
I also felt cheated by the game at that point ,not because Roy broke our agreement and killed the residents , i consider this an interesting twist in the plot (irony;my good diplomatic deeds lead to a massacre) but for the game not giving me a chance to confront Roy for his actions afterwards.
God is Dog backwards
Mildly Dipped
Iozeph said:
Disagree. Books, especially ones written in the first person, can be very compelling with an unreliable narrator - one who says X is happening but in fact it's Y (and the reader is tipped off to this by the way other characters react to the protagonist, the circumstances he finds himself in, and so on). There's one book where at the end of many chapters the protagonist tells the reader to disregard what he's just read because it's all rubbish (Stephen Fry's The Liar, I think). There's an Agatha Christie novel where the murderer turns out to be the narrator.
One of my favourite books is Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day and it's a fine example of an unreliable narrator, IMO. It's in many ways a love story but right to the end the narrator never discusses, or even admits, his feelings of love for the woman; he insists it's a purely professional relationship (i.e. he lies - to the reader and himself). One of the pleasures of the book, for me, is that it might be skim read without picking up on any of this because the narrator is effective in explaining everything that happens as part of the normal working relationship.
As regards games, I like the idea that characters can lie to the player character and don't see anything inherently wrong with that - the problems come when the rest of the game establishes a system where NPCs don't lie, as in Fallout 3. Thus the lie breaks the suspension of disbelief - and the player feels cheated because he couldn't be expected to know that someone might lie.