valcik
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Nah. Those teenagers just don't know how a quality game looks like, because they are infected with consolitis. Do not listen to them!dogy_kane said:
Fallout 3 writing editorial
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
As others have stated, when your game is an FPS, detail is CRITICAL. Cities have to be HUGE because it has to be scaled realistically. The same with rooms and drawers and beds, etc, etc. The problem with that however is searching through shit like that is completely mundane and boring. Thats why games like GTA are shallow and have all the complexity of a rap song. In essence, a lot of shiny but a whole lot of nothing as well.
Hence why a lot of folks here believe that friggin GRAFFIKS isn't the end all be all, ESPECIALLY, not for an serious in-depth roleplaying game thats more about story, writing, dialogue choices, etc, or just CONTENT.
Its the same reason why books are awesome, it leaves a lot of shit to your imagination and skips all the info dump in regards to useless things. When you read
"As you walk into the local tavern, the smell of alcohol and cheap cigarette smoke immediately seizes control of your senses. The racous laughter and myriad of conversations gives the place a semblance of civility. But underneath that veneer, an astute fellow would notice the forced or feigned interest in every conversation. The wary looks and hand placement that screams of seasoned killers waiting in ambush.'
Thats just very basic writing and it requires nothing mundane like the shape and size of dressers or how big the damn beer bottles are. Thats because the focus is on the story.
Second problem is many people here are tired of EVERYTHING being friggin converted into an FPS. With so many ALREADY out there, why does BETH have to rape the Fallout franchise specifically? Why not create their own damned IP? Why not let games like Fallout be handled by those who are best suited to it such as the folks that worked on the originals. There was a good amount of dis-satisfaction with the fact that were it not for Beth, some smaller developer with less economic clout and a whole lot less beuracratic mess ,could have done F3 better justice.
Hence why a lot of folks here believe that friggin GRAFFIKS isn't the end all be all, ESPECIALLY, not for an serious in-depth roleplaying game thats more about story, writing, dialogue choices, etc, or just CONTENT.
Its the same reason why books are awesome, it leaves a lot of shit to your imagination and skips all the info dump in regards to useless things. When you read
"As you walk into the local tavern, the smell of alcohol and cheap cigarette smoke immediately seizes control of your senses. The racous laughter and myriad of conversations gives the place a semblance of civility. But underneath that veneer, an astute fellow would notice the forced or feigned interest in every conversation. The wary looks and hand placement that screams of seasoned killers waiting in ambush.'
Thats just very basic writing and it requires nothing mundane like the shape and size of dressers or how big the damn beer bottles are. Thats because the focus is on the story.
Second problem is many people here are tired of EVERYTHING being friggin converted into an FPS. With so many ALREADY out there, why does BETH have to rape the Fallout franchise specifically? Why not create their own damned IP? Why not let games like Fallout be handled by those who are best suited to it such as the folks that worked on the originals. There was a good amount of dis-satisfaction with the fact that were it not for Beth, some smaller developer with less economic clout and a whole lot less beuracratic mess ,could have done F3 better justice.
To get an updated view on the wasteland. Perfectly sensible, for example Dr. Li and the rest of the team could have moved elsewhere.
No, people do this all the time. By the way the logs were very well acted by a professional. Definitely not
I did
They got there after he left; in my game it took several weeks to get to them which means Father was trapped in 112, plenty of time for the mutants to move in.
For the same reason I like playing games. They are fun.
We don't know that. Obviously only a trained person can use such a piece of technology. I expect you don't launch missiles by pressing a button either.
It probably removes radiation as well, in order to create new life.
Yes, vault 87 was such a case.
you mean the military ?
That was an accident.
No. The location of a GECK is currently unknown.
Stupid project?
We could, but they wouldn't allow us entry. They did only after the Enclave interfered.
To criticize it.
I could keep going on but I think its pointless.
Read the entire blog in the Pinkett voice in my head.
10/10 would read again
10/10 would read again
I don't think Fo3's critically bad point isn't writing or lore.
In fact there's no good point of fo3 except for art design(Yeah... It is great design for PA..but not for Fallout though.).
For system
1. VATS make shooting meaningless
2. sucking perks
3. raped SPECIAL and skill system
4. horrible systems which makes RPG into follow-the-arrow game.
For design,
1. poorly placed quests,
2.boring dungeons:
I heard some dungeons "looking" good. but for me nothing is impressing
3.poorly designed characters
4. poorly designed main quest:
I don't blame for writing but what I want to blame is doing main quest makes player miss lots of sub quest and dungeons that means main quest prevents player from enjoying good points(not for me but for fo3 worshippers.)
5. poorly designed subquest:
since lots of people says sub quests are good, I doubt my opinion is right but IMO Fo3's subquests are sucks as skyrim.
In fact there's no good point of fo3 except for art design(Yeah... It is great design for PA..but not for Fallout though.).
For system
1. VATS make shooting meaningless
2. sucking perks
3. raped SPECIAL and skill system
4. horrible systems which makes RPG into follow-the-arrow game.
For design,
1. poorly placed quests,
2.boring dungeons:
I heard some dungeons "looking" good. but for me nothing is impressing
3.poorly designed characters
4. poorly designed main quest:
I don't blame for writing but what I want to blame is doing main quest makes player miss lots of sub quest and dungeons that means main quest prevents player from enjoying good points(not for me but for fo3 worshippers.)
5. poorly designed subquest:
since lots of people says sub quests are good, I doubt my opinion is right but IMO Fo3's subquests are sucks as skyrim.
sea said:
I don't see a contradiction here. I'm playing Bioshock Infinite right now and as far as I can see, the city floats thanks to quantum mechanics, but is stabilized and moved about with rockets and baloons.
It isn't shitty storytelling, it's simply giving the player enough substance to suspend their disbelief. If the game argued that the city floats only due to balloons and rockets, it would break suspension, because balloons have a relatively low lift. The Hindenburg, the largest zeppelin ever built, needed 200,000 m3 of hydrogen to lift just about 232 tons: passengers, structure, and more. Imagine the amount of gas and the size of the air bags needed to lift even a single Columbia island. Rockets don't cut it either, as the amount of fuel needed to generate sufficient lift to keep the entire city in place would generate excessive weight, which would require more fuel, which would require more lift, which would... You get the idea.
Quantum mechanics elegantly bypasses the problem entirely. It is the Science! of Bioshock Infinite, allowing for impossible feats. It works and makes sense in the context of the setting.
Kwiatmen666
It Wandered In From the Wastes
valcik said:
Now that's just rude - implying that people who prefer consoles over PCs don't know about quality games that is.
Gaspard
Kasparov
Kwiatmen666 said:
That's right! I really liked Ratatouille. The level in the sewer pipes - priceless! I could play that forever and then some. Too bad I don't have a console...
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Good point Sea. 
One thing I absolutely hate is the bullshit excuse some writers use as a copout to actually working hard or to defend their writing skills being restricted by the marketing/pr/managerial fuckwads. That excuse is the classic: Hey man, our story is so awesome that YOU, the viewer can figure it out yourself'.
I paid money to have a good fucking story and awesome writing, AKA what anything labelled as FALLOUT should have shitloads of. When I talk to my friends or you folks about Fallout, I like to know I have concrete/canon info from the developer to back up my arguments. The problem with the lazy copout above is nobody can win any debate because the primary makeup and facts of a story that SHOULD be there, isn't.
One thing I absolutely hate is the bullshit excuse some writers use as a copout to actually working hard or to defend their writing skills being restricted by the marketing/pr/managerial fuckwads. That excuse is the classic: Hey man, our story is so awesome that YOU, the viewer can figure it out yourself'.
I paid money to have a good fucking story and awesome writing, AKA what anything labelled as FALLOUT should have shitloads of. When I talk to my friends or you folks about Fallout, I like to know I have concrete/canon info from the developer to back up my arguments. The problem with the lazy copout above is nobody can win any debate because the primary makeup and facts of a story that SHOULD be there, isn't.
This is just a point,
Do other NMA'ers think that the rise of consoles and associated eye candy is because the level of interaction that can be provided on a console is no where near that can be achieved on a PC?
As in the developers can fart there way around piss poor scripting by not giving you much of a chance to explore the environment in more detail, and as such not putting as much thought into the finer details into the story and universe.
Do other NMA'ers think that the rise of consoles and associated eye candy is because the level of interaction that can be provided on a console is no where near that can be achieved on a PC?
As in the developers can fart there way around piss poor scripting by not giving you much of a chance to explore the environment in more detail, and as such not putting as much thought into the finer details into the story and universe.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
In any FPS or TPS, everything your character sees has to be to scale and awesomely shiny, or whats termed IMMERSHUN.
Problem is graphics can be really expensive to pull off due to the massive amount of resources developing it requires. You have people who storyboard, those who animate everything, backgrounds artists, designers, etc, etc.
Whats happening to videogames today is on par with whats going on in Hollywood. In some kind of gigantic braincell loss of epic fuckup proportions, these folks have created a vicious cycle of what I term, graphic/mainstream symbiosis.
1. Your average blockbuster is so filthily laden with special effects that it costs an heinous amount to produce. How do they break even or make a profit then?
2. Well, the producers now 'modify', the movie so that it appeals to the broadest amount of audiences possible. In order to do so, the producers generally have to tone down or hush up anything that might offend, 'the mainstream'. This means something thats not overly controversial, too 'deep', too violent, etc.
End result?
A product thats visually spectacular but totally devoid of any real substance.
Problem is graphics can be really expensive to pull off due to the massive amount of resources developing it requires. You have people who storyboard, those who animate everything, backgrounds artists, designers, etc, etc.
Whats happening to videogames today is on par with whats going on in Hollywood. In some kind of gigantic braincell loss of epic fuckup proportions, these folks have created a vicious cycle of what I term, graphic/mainstream symbiosis.
1. Your average blockbuster is so filthily laden with special effects that it costs an heinous amount to produce. How do they break even or make a profit then?
2. Well, the producers now 'modify', the movie so that it appeals to the broadest amount of audiences possible. In order to do so, the producers generally have to tone down or hush up anything that might offend, 'the mainstream'. This means something thats not overly controversial, too 'deep', too violent, etc.
End result?
A product thats visually spectacular but totally devoid of any real substance.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
Nah. The dumber, easier, and flashier you make something the bigger the market you have to sell to. It's all about having the largest possible customer base. That doesn't mean everyone who plays console games is an idiot, but it does mean that if you sealed console gamers in a room with a 1987 PC and a floppy disk copy of Wasteland, a large percentage of them wouldn't be able to figure out how to make it go. And a fair portion of those who did would consider it unplayable or quit from "boredom."Muff said:
That is what I was talking about, but you have worded it better than I did.
1) WOW! factor I do honestly feel that is over used, in film and games. I would in a game or film feel drawn in to a environment yea you can make it look stunning at a distance (HL2 did this towards the end when you where in the carrier up to Breans lab). They where able to deliver on candy and story, in FO one of the most taking moments for me at least was the first few moments looking round in Loansom Road. The vista of the devide provided at first was in my opinion brilliant.
2) That is the problem, the mass is not going to be involved in the RPG seen. A lot of gamers don't like games where you are given decisions that last, they like a A,B,C = D formula, this is because for alot of gamers that is all they know and dont like changes from that over night. Also they are used to games they can "Clock" in 8 - 15 hours, this is one of the main reasons DLC's are pushed so hard, the devs can push the core game after 1 or 2 months sales drop off month 3 DLC 1 is released with 5/6 hours game play, after a month drops off so later DLC 2 is released etc.
And now there is micro transactions, nice little ways of getting drip feed money. So we are going to see less big release followed by a few minor ones till the next game. And even more hostility towards the mod makers.
Think about this for a second, some of the best developers and studios got there start making mods. You know what could be a money spinner for consoles, allow mods and in this case I am not talking about "Tweak XYZ" but serious mods that add content, whle new areas, critters etc that they could cash in on...
OK fan base comes up with X, they add it to the DLC base on XBL or PSN, etc, MS get 10% of the profit, Studio / Devs get 40% and the moders get the remainder.
That is what I want to see.
1) WOW! factor I do honestly feel that is over used, in film and games. I would in a game or film feel drawn in to a environment yea you can make it look stunning at a distance (HL2 did this towards the end when you where in the carrier up to Breans lab). They where able to deliver on candy and story, in FO one of the most taking moments for me at least was the first few moments looking round in Loansom Road. The vista of the devide provided at first was in my opinion brilliant.
2) That is the problem, the mass is not going to be involved in the RPG seen. A lot of gamers don't like games where you are given decisions that last, they like a A,B,C = D formula, this is because for alot of gamers that is all they know and dont like changes from that over night. Also they are used to games they can "Clock" in 8 - 15 hours, this is one of the main reasons DLC's are pushed so hard, the devs can push the core game after 1 or 2 months sales drop off month 3 DLC 1 is released with 5/6 hours game play, after a month drops off so later DLC 2 is released etc.
And now there is micro transactions, nice little ways of getting drip feed money. So we are going to see less big release followed by a few minor ones till the next game. And even more hostility towards the mod makers.
Think about this for a second, some of the best developers and studios got there start making mods. You know what could be a money spinner for consoles, allow mods and in this case I am not talking about "Tweak XYZ" but serious mods that add content, whle new areas, critters etc that they could cash in on...
OK fan base comes up with X, they add it to the DLC base on XBL or PSN, etc, MS get 10% of the profit, Studio / Devs get 40% and the moders get the remainder.
That is what I want to see.
well the console had one big advantage, or well it still has. Its seen as "family" friendly. For the marketing this is very valuable. The PC had always this label of beeing a platform "for the nerds" while the console always seen as pure gamer or toy platform. Easier to sell that super violent game to the soccer mom when her little brat ask for the next GTA game or CoD. However as the Wii has proven in the past, it can be a great and fun platform, for the whole family. Nintendo dominated that market for a very long time for example.UniversalWolf said:
Part of the problem is though, that many games like Assasins Creed or CoD require a lot of money. And most of it is spend for the marketing. So a game like the new Hitman for example has to at least sell 3 million copies, or it will not even make any profit. Just to say this, Diablo 2 sold around 1 milion copies (probably a bit more), and it was one of the most succesfull games back then. Now imagine if a game like Fallout 4 for example would only sell 1 million copies ...
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
PC; Games were usually adult oriented and violent with strategy/puzzle mixed in. I will call it the soldier.
Console: Games were usually kid friendly. I will call it the child.
Mainstream gaming and the amalgamation of the two brought on by more powerful console systems: I will call it, the child soldier.
I wracked my brain but couldn't think of a better analogy.
Console: Games were usually kid friendly. I will call it the child.
Mainstream gaming and the amalgamation of the two brought on by more powerful console systems: I will call it, the child soldier.
I wracked my brain but couldn't think of a better analogy.
smber2cnma
First time out of the vault
Crni Vuk said:
Read this and though "that can't be possible", 1 million? I was ready for my jaw to drop in amazement that Diablo 2 sold that small...nope, sold way more.
1st I found the wiki page stating, "a full seven years after the game's initial release – and 11 million users still play Diablo II and StarCraft." Though okay, maybe that's 10 million SC players.
Then I realized game stats are really weird:
Wikipedia lists
Diablo 2 as selling 4 million copies by 2001
& also lists WOW sales as 4.7 million while also saying they had over 10 million subscribers in 2012. How's that work?
Another site gave these numbers from way back in 2006, much larger and I'd say more believable if we add in all the "Battle Chest" sales in Walmart and what not - though it is weird to see more expansions sold than base games.
1. Diablo II (12 million)
2. Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (17.5 million)
3. WOW (10.7 subscribers)
4. StarCraft, inc. Brood Wars (9.5 million)
5. Warcraft IIIL Reign of Chaos (3 million)
6. WCIII: Frozen Throne (5 million)
7. Diablo (2.5 million)
8. Warcraft II (1 million)
Franchises:
1. Warcraft (19 million)
2. Diablo (18.5 million)
3. StarCraft (9.5 million)
In conclusion: DAMN. Blizzard can sell them some games.
C&C: Red Alert sold over a dozen million copies. It isn't just Blizzard that's successful.
The biggest issue with such rankings is the timeframe you take into account. Most publishers only look at the short term, which is why titles that are successful in the long term (Alpha Protocol, I think, and other cult classics) often fail to qualify for sequels.
The biggest issue with such rankings is the timeframe you take into account. Most publishers only look at the short term, which is why titles that are successful in the long term (Alpha Protocol, I think, and other cult classics) often fail to qualify for sequels.
sea said:
It doesn't. That was my point. You just played the game in bad faith and that's why you made glaring mistakes in your analysis, such as believing that Jefferson Memorial contained the location of Vault 87. A story does require good faith though: Wouldn't be a shame to skip Fallout when first reading that Radaway removes "radiation particles" ?
vix said:
Yes, it does. Fallout 3 does a really bad job of providing plot exposition and convincing explanations (if it even does provide them in the first place). I don't see how you can argue that the glaring, obvious plot holes are only a result of bad faith.
Tagaziel said:
Probably due to the reason that they are described as such by one who made glaring errors in such key points as Anna Holt. An "understudy", "lab assistant", "too young" ? That doesn't make sense to anyone who played the game without trying to fill a quota of "plot holes" in a notebook next to his mouse.
In my posting I tried to reply to them one by one. Then the author dismissed my points as the products of fanwank. He didn't care counter arguing to one of them. I have to dismiss his as products of bad faith.