Fireside Chat

[alec]

Well, actually, that's quite debatable. You have lots of old graphic novels that were seriously popular in their own time, but were forgotten and simply had to wait to get rediscovered. A typical example is Milt Gross' He Done Her Wrong from 1930. It's slapstick, but that was just in popular demand back then (Chaplin made The Circus in 1928).
It's still a serious work, though, meant for adults and brilliantly executed even by today's standards.

Graphic novels have been around for quite some time, it's just the media doing one of their hypes. Meh.

 

[patriot_41]

Did you even play the game?

I watched it being played for some time, watched my share of videos and I can safely say that I will not play it. Ever. It's ugly and uninspired and I don't like fps or tps. And if you really need me to elaborate more, I will tell you what's wrong with the art direction - not only was it not Fallout, but it had no idea where Fallout was coming from. And I downloaded and watched Big Trouble in Little China, Mad Max 2, Logan's Run, Blade Runner. Alien and a Boy and His Dog remain to be seen. There is a certain solidity of the design in all those movies, some ruggedness, which contradicts the art direction of Fallout 3. The slave pens for example are almost 1:1 in Big Trouble.

Compare this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2800

To this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=24

And since I am a self-proclaimed artist, I do care and no, I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong. I'm showing you the vault dweller's suit, because I couldn't find a concept for the original Fallout robes.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2633

You tell me how the fuck is that fallout and not some generic Warhammer Technomancer ripoff.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

All I hear on these boards and in this thread is that games should focus more on secondary elements like dialogue (“Boohoo! Dialogue so dumb in FO3! Bethesda writers suck!”). I say that this would be in vain because the literary possibilities of games are restricted by the medium and the interaction with the other elements used in said medium.

I believe that gameplay always comes first and in games with dialogue options the dialogue becomes a part of the gameplay. The amount of dialogue and options determines how important of a part it is, so while games like Darkwatch can get away with the type of dialogue and options that it has, games like Fallout 3 should not. If writing is a central element to your game (time spent is an easy way to determine this) then it should be up to snuff. Writing should properly service the game and the amount of writing that the player should/does see determines what levels are appropriate.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

I agree with Garlic here. Maybe if you're making Quake or Guitar Hero, writing is a secondary element, if a necessary element at all. On the other hand, some games exist primarily to tell a story through player interaction, and I like to believe that this includes not only Visual Novels and VN-hybrid games, but also Western cRPGs. So, the FO3 writing is bad because the devs didn't choose it as a priority, and the reason many people here are upset is because it's a 180 degrees from the previous FO games. (although tbh it was a fucking stupid idea not to put much work into writing and still have a lot of text-based interaction, and FO3 would've done much better as a pure action game, probably).

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I think that it would be wise for Bethesda to actually try to minimize the amount of text in their games and get rid being able to talk to random NPCs (if have them at all). I think that doing so would allow them to focus more on what they really care about, questing and adventuring through a big, open world, killing what you want. By narrowing down their games to what they are really about I think it would greatly improve their focus which would result in an all around better product. I see this product being something like a FPP, open world Diablo (though let's be honest, not up to Blizzard levels of polish), a product which I imagine would attract more consumers than they already have.

Since I see that as highly unlikely then they need to work on their writers. That may mean hiring/replacing writing staff or hiring a great editor (I've come to really appreciate good editors, they do wonders). It may also require that Todd, Emil, and Pete be uninvolved in the writing process past the concept stage and before the QA stage or get more involved (though I doubt it). If their writing was up to par and they continue to work on their voice acting (hire a good coordinator and voice actors instead of actors), which went in the right direction for Fallout 3 even if the main improvement was an increase in quantity rather than quality, then they would have something to balance out their mediocre gameplay.

I'd prefer that they simply toss all of the fluff until they fine tune their gameplay and then come back to it if they want, but I doubt that is going to happen.

 

[Crni Vuk]

[the art direction is horrendous.

You can say a lot of bad things about Fo3, but not that the art direction is horrendous. It has that retrofuturistic vibe and 95% of it fits in with the Fallout world.

thats one of the few things they did right, the graphics are still bad but the art style is decent.

Which is to me no surprise considering the model they had as inspiration.

I guess it will be for quite some time the last time Bethesda had a "real" game in their hands (with thinking about that they got the inspiration from old Fallout games)

I'd prefer that they simply toss all of the fluff until they fine tune their gameplay and then come back to it if they want, but I doubt that is going to happen.

Unlikely, yes. Not when you consider how they do their games and tend to skip any important concept and design phase and trying to get as fast as possible from the actual "idea" to "programming" which then of course naturaly lead to such idiotic events like talking the main vilain in a stupid way in "suicide" or your team members refusing to do the work for you even if it would mean no harm for them (since they are save from radiation for example, why would a robot or super mutant friend you saved his life not want to save your life ? so much to good writting huh ...)

Thing is the way how Bethesda works and designs games really hurts the quality of their product as for a RPG how can you even think about working on a story and well written dialogues without a concept or design that you worked out well enough BEFORE you even have any kind of code or software. But I guess a lot of their recources go directly in to the marketing and advertising so some things have to be short in the production, like programming or a concept. Particularly since their marketing is so close to the programming or game developing. In my eyes it has a way to big effect on them. But well. Thats just my oppinion

 

[Eyenixon]

I agree with Garlic here. Maybe if you're making Quake or Guitar Hero, writing is a secondary element, if a necessary element at all. On the other hand, some games exist primarily to tell a story through player interaction, and I like to believe that this includes not only Visual Novels and VN-hybrid games, but also Western cRPGs. So, the FO3 writing is bad because the devs didn't choose it as a priority, and the reason many people here are upset is because it's a 180 degrees from the previous FO games. (although tbh it was a fucking stupid idea not to put much work into writing and still have a lot of text-based interaction, and FO3 would've done much better as a pure action game, probably).

You're mistaken if you think the first two Fallouts were about the story or narrative, the dialog and plot was well written, but ultimately that wasn't the reason why they were remembered.
I'd say most people treasure them for the well executed choice & consequence which arguably hasn't been done as well since, the variety of playstyles, and its thick GURPS inspired character system.

Stack that up against games like most JRPGs where people do the complete opposite and practically only remember them for their plot work which is typically draped over mediocre gameplay.
Fallout 3's major issues are entirely separate from the quality of its writing, and thus it shouldn't have been a priority anyhow. So I wouldn't call it a 180, just a lapse in quality, what is a 180 is how they took the interactive tightly knit and relatively small scale (for an RPG) Fallout and turned it into a massive Elder Scrolls style explorathon killfest without any of the variety Fallout was known for.

There are very few times that developers themselves place their concerns on writing.
Not every game is a PS:T, and they shouldn't be, because those games require the player to divert his attentions from actually playing the game. Quite frankly I never liked PS:T's writing and my idea of greatness comes from games like Fallout or the original Secret of Monkey Island, especially SoMI, since Ron Gilbert and company didn't even realize that the jokes and dialog they had put into the game were going to be the actual finalized dialog.

Whether or not it's a priority is meaningless, you either have talented writers or you don't, someone who can write doesn't need to prioritize to pull off something interesting or inspired. If you don't have talented writers, they'll waste the same amount of time as a talented one but excrete garbage.

 

[Tagaziel]

I watched it being played for some time, watched my share of videos and I can safely say that I will not play it. Ever.

You haven't seen how the art direction looks like then. Watching videos =/= playing the game.

It's ugly and uninspired and I don't like fps or tps.

Uh, perspective doesn't factor into art style?

I can hardly call it uninspired, Bethesda picked a 1950s theme and followed through with it. Sure, the end product is fairly mediocre, but the art direction, environments, armor, are all quite Fallouty.

Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 all use banans, but while the first two are shakes, the last one is banana boiled in tar.

That doesn't mean the original banana is any less tasty.

And if you really need me to elaborate more, I will tell you what's wrong with the art direction - not only was it not Fallout, but it had no idea where Fallout was coming from.

Fallout is retrofuturistic, based on 1950s.
Fallout 3 is retrofuturustic, based on 1950s.

?

And I downloaded and watched Big Trouble in Little China, Mad Max 2, Logan's Run, Blade Runner. Alien and a Boy and His Dog remain to be seen. There is a certain solidity of the design in all those movies, some ruggedness, which contradicts the art direction of Fallout 3. The slave pens for example are almost 1:1 in Big Trouble.

A 1986 action flick with Kurt Russell, featuring an undead Chinese warlock is oh, so very Fallout.

Compare this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2800

To this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=24

Different interpretations of the same concept. Your point...?

And since I am a self-proclaimed artist, I do care and no, I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong. I'm showing you the vault dweller's suit, because I couldn't find a concept for the original Fallout robes.

Yep, you're right, Fallout has no place for variety, no sir, all the games with the name should mindlessly copy Fo1, swapping only the plot (which must include supermutants) and changing critter names.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2633

You tell me how the fuck is that fallout and not some generic Warhammer Technomancer ripoff.

I can also pick and choose screenshots and concept art, ripping off context, to support my argument, but that isn't really a valid method for any kind of discourse.

 

[patriot_41]

I watched it being played for some time, watched my share of videos and I can safely say that I will not play it. Ever.

You haven't seen how the art direction looks like then. Watching videos =/= playing the game.

I said I watched it being played. I don't have the skills/experience/whatever to operate efficiently in this perspective, as it confuses me, because it limits my scope of view. I can play fps onli IRL. And art direction is clearly evident - color palette, overall design direction etc. Lots of fine, intricate detail, which suggest technology much more advanced than the fifties and more reminiscent of design decisions ala Battlestar Galactica and the Matrix. The vault, to me, looked like the inside of a ship in top notch condition. Maybe I sould've said it otherwise: art direction is not horriblе as a whole, it just totally misses the point. And the retarded animation doesn't help me much.

It's ugly and uninspired and I don't like fps or tps.

Uh, perspective doesn't factor into art style?

I can hardly call it uninspired, Bethesda picked a 1950s theme and followed through with it. Sure, the end product is fairly mediocre, but the art direction, environments, armor, are all quite Fallouty.

Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 all use banans, but while the first two are shakes, the last one is banana boiled in tar.

That doesn't mean the original banana is any less tasty.

I have yet to encounter a banana in Fallout. And no, the only element which I can call 50-ish is the Pip Boy. The weapons concepts confused me the most - some were in perfect condition, others looked like they'd fall apart every minute and there seemed to be no logical visual flow between the two extremities - like they were form separate games. That I find stupid.

And if you really need me to elaborate more, I will tell you what's wrong with the art direction - not only was it not Fallout, but it had no idea where Fallout was coming from.

Fallout is retrofuturistic, based on 1950s.
Fallout 3 is retrofuturustic, based on 1950s.

It says it is, yet it is generic sci-fi with a wasteland and some 50's thrown in. None of the three directions matched the other - like a world wholly built out of different patches of land, which shouldn't/couldn't exist together. I really don't intend to buy and play this, just to prove my point. I could browse for screenshots, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

And I downloaded and watched Big Trouble in Little China, Mad Max 2, Logan's Run, Blade Runner. Alien and a Boy and His Dog remain to be seen. There is a certain solidity of the design in all those movies, some ruggedness, which contradicts the art direction of Fallout 3. The slave pens for example are almost 1:1 in Big Trouble.

A 1986 action flick with Kurt Russell, featuring an undead Chinese warlock is oh, so very Fallout.

It was a valid quest in a FO2 location. It wasn't even an easter egg. So it's no less an influence than the Blade Runner movie.

Compare this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2800

To this:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=24

Different interpretations of the same concept. Your point...?

My point, as stated above is, that one is a piece of stretchable material (probably spandex), reminsicent of Star Trek or Logan's uniform (in Logan's Run) - a slick, simple design, quite popular around the time. The other is a mixture between a light padded protection clothing and work overalls. It's no t a different interpretation, it's a different kind of clothing from a different world/era/civillisation. It doesn't match the original era, the original influences and is a type of clothing which is more logical to be encountered in today's movies.

And why is it a stupid design decision? The Vault suit is one of the most important elements in the game and, according to it, it's standard Vault equipment.

And since I am a self-proclaimed artist, I do care and no, I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong. I'm showing you the vault dweller's suit, because I couldn't find a concept for the original Fallout robes.

Yep, you're right, Fallout has no place for variety, no sir, all the games with the name should mindlessly copy Fo1, swapping only the plot (which must include supermutants) and changing critter names.

WTF does that even mean? Where did I even say it? Or suggested it? I was unhappy that I couldn't find and show you, that the robes in the originals were a garment made of cloth, and not a combination of padding, bionics, fantasy elements and other kool stuff. Because it's hard (impossible) to find the technology to create something of that complexity in the barren nuke-desolated wasteland. And if you theoretically could, it wopuld be stupid to waste on aesthetics of a simple piece of clothing. And that's valid for most of the game decisions. I'm not saying it's ugly or without merits, it's just wrong.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2633

You tell me how the fuck is that fallout and not some generic Warhammer Technomancer ripoff.

I can also pick and choose screenshots and concept art, ripping off context, to support my argument, but that isn't really a valid method for any kind of discourse.

Show me one instance of a piece of garment worn in the 50's that remotely resembles the robes in Fallout 3. There isn't. It's just underthought - it's kool, but pointless. Like the whole game.

Then again the game wasn't intended for me, so there's no point in trying to prove me wrong. It's a different game, deprived of everything I loved in the originals and targeted to someone with different skills/tastes/mindset than mine.

 

[Ausir]

The vault, to me, looked like the inside of a ship in top notch condition.

Well, to me the inside of the vauts looked pretty much like it did in FO1 and 2.

 

[shihonage]

Fallout3 art direction wasn't Fallouty. It was a generic vision of a wasteland, rather uninspired, with a slew of cheap semi-"recognizeable" gimmicks thrown in for those pesky old guard Fallout fans.

IMO.

 

[terebikun]

Jesus, this has to be the most arrogant, subjectivity-denying angry circle jerk I've ever seen on NMA. Even for comments replying to an article basically about how tragic it is that the author is so right and everyone else is so wrong and won't someone please think of the children. Some common sense: Linearity doesn't necessarily make a game bad. A breadth of choices doesn't necessarily make a game good. Fallout 3 isn't a bad game just because you say it is. It also isn't a good game just because I say it is (but I do have the numbers on my side). If someone doesn't think that video games are culturally, intellectually, or artistically relevant, that person should probably not perform any task that requires them to be aware of their surroundings. Judging by how quick people here have been to say that video games are a stagnant cesspool of lowest common denominator-thinking, more folks need to check out the indie game scene. Hell, even AAA-titles like the GTA games have some of the sharpest satire around. Some other stuff I feel compelled to respond to:

Words can change their meaning in an instant. Pictures can do that as well, but with more effort since they are much more tied to reality: forget Magritte because a picture of an egg will be seen as... (a picture of) an EGG by most sensible human beings (and pomo is so passé anyway). That’s why we are living in a pictorial world today: pictures take away most of the ambivalence of words and certainly of music. Humans can’t stand uncertainty. It kills them. You know this to be true.

I'm sorry, do you know what visual art is? It's this crazy new thing we invented in pre-history where we create pictures that we can attach meaning to. Sometimes they aren't even taken from reality! There's even some that are so "abstract" that there's no certain identifiable form! It's just nuts! You're right though, I know it to be true that humans can't stand uncertainty. Every damn one of them. It's why personally I hate surprises, new things, and anything changing ever.

And this is just an illustrated book we’re talking about! It gets even worse when you go to strips and then to movies and then to games: you add more elements, you basically make the form more complex, but that has severe repurcussions for the content: you automatically simplify it, yeah, you “dumbify” it. And no goddamn closure is going to prevent that from happening.

I hate it when things get more complex and simpler at the same time. So, do you think silent films are inherently superior to those newfangled talkies because you can interpret for yourself how an actor might say a line, instead of the movie forcing spoken dialogue on you?

Graphic novels have been around for quite some time, it's just the media doing one of their hypes. Meh.

Are you a real person with actual opinions? Because everything you say makes me imagine a cartoon old person yelling at cars and complaining about that damn rock music. Or David Cross in this sketch. I'll warn you, the link is from a TV show, not a book, so you probably won't enjoy it. You might be able to find the teleplay somewhere online, if all those moving pictures and sounds become too simple and complex for you.

And I downloaded and watched Big Trouble in Little China, Mad Max 2, Logan's Run, Blade Runner. Alien and a Boy and His Dog remain to be seen

Big Trouble in Little China is a great example of a movie where they just threw in a bunch of "cool shit". Not saying it's bad, but it's a huge hodgepodge of quasi-Asian mysticism geared for 10 year olds. Also has absolutely nothing to do with Fallout, as far as I can tell. A Boy and His Dog is fantastic, watch it (although it is in no way a very solid movie as you seem to insist all of Fallout's influences are).

 

[God is Dog backwards]

Jesus, this has to be the most arrogant, subjectivity-denying angry circle jerk I've ever seen on NMA. Even for comments replying to an article basically about how tragic it is that the author is so right and everyone else is so wrong and won't someone please think of the children.

Kind of agree with this, though I acknowledge this post isn't contributing much. But this whole thread smells pompous to me.

Anyway, back to Arrested Development...

 

[patriot_41]

And I downloaded and watched Big Trouble in Little China, Mad Max 2, Logan's Run, Blade Runner. Alien and a Boy and His Dog remain to be seen

Big Trouble in Little China is a great example of a movie where they just threw in a bunch of "cool shit". Not saying it's bad, but it's a huge hodgepodge of quasi-Asian mysticism geared for 10 year olds. Also has absolutely nothing to do with Fallout, as far as I can tell. A Boy and His Dog is fantastic, watch it (although it is in no way a very solid movie as you seem to insist all of Fallout's influences are).

All (original) Fallout influences are rugged and manly and testosterone-ridden.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

You're mistaken if you think the first two Fallouts were about the story or narrative, the dialog and plot was well written, but ultimately that wasn't the reason why they were remembered.
I'd say most people treasure them for the well executed choice & consequence which arguably hasn't been done as well since, the variety of playstyles, and its thick GURPS inspired character system[snip]
Whether or not it's a priority is meaningless, you either have talented writers or you don't, someone who can write doesn't need to prioritize to pull off something interesting or inspired. If you don't have talented writers, they'll waste the same amount of time as a talented one but excrete garbage.

Well, it's what drew ME to the game regardless. Also notice how I said "story through player interaction"; thus I compare classic Western cRPG more to Visual Novels rather than JRPGs - those are a complete opposite, as you noted, linear story and lots of grind (somewhat similar to Western roguelike - all about some linear story and phat loot). There's also some Japanese Visual novel/SLG hybrids that are much more similar to cRPG like Fallout (although not as much c&c) with non-linear story. The difference is that roguelike and JRPG a-la FF or Secret of Mana put emphasis on gameplay through combat/sandbox exploration, and can (and often do) get away with a poorly written story. Let's face it, half (if not more) Final Fantasy games are horribly written, and so are games like Diablo, but it isn't the focus - they are still liked regardless. Visual Novels or RPG like FO or Arcanum wouldn't get away if they had the same level of writing, and so the emphasis on writing is also bigger.

That's what I meant about the priorities. IMO, it's better to concentrate on sth else rather than waste time and effort to do something half-assedly. If FO3 game devs didn't consider writing all that important, then they shouldn't have bothered having so much of it and rather fix some major bugs.

Also, you're wrong with the "you either have good writers or you don't" part, because, well, the budget for games is not limitless, so there's a GREAT need for prioritizing. Well, maybe less so for AAA games with huge budget, but looking at FO3 the money they spent on BAD writers could definitely be better spent somewhere else. Perhaps it takes the same amount of TIME (although it can be argued against), as you say, but does it take the same amount of MONEY?

 

[Brother None]

Jesus, this has to be the most arrogant, subjectivity-denying angry circle jerk I've ever seen on NMA. Even for comments replying to an article basically about how tragic it is that the author is so right and everyone else is so wrong and won't someone please think of the children.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Well, to me the inside of the vauts looked pretty much like it did in FO1 and 2.

The Bethesdian levels of bloom combined with the greenish filter and clearly different door can be misleading. I'd agree, from what I've seen of Vault 101 it looked pretty close.

Fallout3 art direction wasn't Fallouty. It was a generic vision of a wasteland, rather uninspired, with a slew of cheap semi-"recognizeable" gimmicks thrown in for those pesky old guard Fallout fans.

I think that it was clearly inspired by Fallout but always diverged, in some places (Mirelurk Kings) way more than others (Mirelurks).

Linearity doesn't necessarily make a game bad. A breadth of choices doesn't necessarily make a game good.

You're right and I'm pretty sure that most people aren't arguing that. What people have said is that nonlinearity is something which games can do extremely well and significantly better than other media, such as books (which can do it) and film (which struggle to do it and do so rarely, though there are a handful of examples). I'm not saying that people don't argue that, Ebert's whole argument against games as "art" is that they aren't completely linear (player interaction basically), just that I didn't see anyone arguing that.

Fallout 3 isn't a bad game just because you say it is. It also isn't a good game just because I say it is (but I do have the numbers on my side).

What numbers? Sales? Reviews? Sales reflect the marketability (and sometimes short term popularity) of a product. Take Titanic for example, reviewers and viewers loved it when it was released and now most of the reviewers who have rewatched the movie have panned it. According to "the numbers," the best 5 movies ever made were: Titanic, TLoR: Return of the King, PotC: Deadman's Chest, The Dark Knight, and Harry Potter and the Socerer's Stone. As for reviews, gaming journalism has yet to mature or even break free from financially relying on those they review. Metacritic's scale is proof that reviews are significantly skewed towards the top of the spectrum.

Judging by how quick people here have been to say that video games are a stagnant cesspool of lowest common denominator-thinking, more folks need to check out the indie game scene.

Gotta love it when people say this on NMA given how much indies are talked about. Do you even read the forums? Indie titles are discussed regularly and news posted fairly regularly, simply look at the Age of Decadence threads. Also it's obvious that indie games aren't going to pander to the lowest denominator because they're indie games, they are intended to hit small niche markets. Indie games aren't AAA games or games intended to be moderate successes for major developers and it shows, both in how they are positively different (more innovative) and in how they are negatively different (I'd be shocked if the release rate for indie games was above 50%, they are technically inferior in every way except gameplay).

Hell, even AAA-titles like the GTA games have some of the sharpest satire around.

I haven't played a GTA game since GTA3 but I can assure you that there was no sharp satire in that. Not saying that it doesn't pop up every now and then in bigger titles but I can't think of any AAA games that really focus on satire.

 

[Tagaziel]

I said I watched it being played. I don't have the skills/experience/whatever to operate efficiently in this perspective, as it confuses me, because it limits my scope of view. I can play fps onli IRL. And art direction is clearly evident - color palette, overall design direction etc. Lots of fine, intricate detail, which suggest technology much more advanced than the fifties and more reminiscent of design decisions ala Battlestar Galactica and the Matrix. The vault, to me, looked like the inside of a ship in top notch condition. Maybe I sould've said it otherwise: art direction is not horriblе as a whole, it just totally misses the point. And the retarded animation doesn't help me much.

Yeah, you've just proven my point. You have no idea about Fo3's art direction or Fallout's world for that matter.

Fallout's tech is not tech of the 1950s. It's tech of the retrofuturistic 2070s.

I have yet to encounter a banana in Fallout. And no, the only element which I can call 50-ish is the Pip Boy. The weapons concepts confused me the most - some were in perfect condition, others looked like they'd fall apart every minute and there seemed to be no logical visual flow between the two extremities - like they were form separate games. That I find stupid.

You don't see the 1950s because you haven't played the game. Videos only give a very rough idea about the gameworld art direction, as you can't stop and examine what you see.

It says it is, yet it is generic sci-fi with a wasteland and some 50's thrown in.

So first you say the only 1950s thing is the PIP-Boy, now you say "some". Make up your mind.

None of the three directions matched the other - like a world wholly built out of different patches of land, which shouldn't/couldn't exist together. I really don't intend to buy and play this, just to prove my point. I could browse for screenshots, but I don't think it's worth the effort.

So instead you'll pretend you know everything about Fallout 3's art direction. How quaint.

It was a valid quest in a FO2 location. It wasn't even an easter egg. So it's no less an influence than the Blade Runner movie.

Let me quote you: "I don't care who the fuck makes it, if they make it wrong." Lo Pan and half of San Francisco was wrong.

You don't acknowledge it. Hypocritical, much?

My point, as stated above is, that one is a piece of stretchable material (probably spandex), reminsicent of Star Trek or Logan's uniform (in Logan's Run) - a slick, simple design, quite popular around the time. The other is a mixture between a light padded protection clothing and work overalls. It's no t a different interpretation, it's a different kind of clothing from a different world/era/civillisation. It doesn't match the original era, the original influences and is a type of clothing which is more logical to be encountered in today's movies.

And why is it a stupid design decision? The Vault suit is one of the most important elements in the game and, according to it, it's standard Vault equipment.

And it's designed to be standard vault equipment, easily repairable and quite a bit more useful than a standard jumpsuit for Fo1. As I said, different design, basing on the same sources, but not going for the spandex type body suit.

WTF does that even mean? Where did I even say it? Or suggested it? I was unhappy that I couldn't find and show you, that the robes in the originals were a garment made of cloth, and not a combination of padding, bionics, fantasy elements and other kool stuff. Because it's hard (impossible) to find the technology to create something of that complexity in the barren nuke-desolated wasteland. And if you theoretically could, it wopuld be stupid to waste on aesthetics of a simple piece of clothing. And that's valid for most of the game decisions. I'm not saying it's ugly or without merits, it's just wrong.

Because there is no detailed concept art or description in the game, you are in no position to decide what's right or wrong.

I don't like the end result that much, but I don't hate it either.

Show me one instance of a piece of garment worn in the 50's that remotely resembles the robes in Fallout 3. There isn't. It's just underthought - it's kool, but pointless. Like the whole game.

See, this shows just how ignorant you are of the subject you're complaining about. You are complaining about a single piece of clothig and then extrapolating it to the entire array of outfits available in Fo3.

Which is kind of sad. You're pointing at a single piece of concept art, instead of familiarizing yourself with the game and what it actually has to offer.

Then again the game wasn't intended for me, so there's no point in trying to prove me wrong. It's a different game, deprived of everything I loved in the originals and targeted to someone with different skills/tastes/mindset than mine.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[The Idiot]

The vault, to me, looked like the inside of a ship in top notch condition.

Well, to me the inside of the vauts looked pretty much like it did in FO1 and 2.

The deserted one's were fine, but 101 was too dirty and sort of sad. It looked more like the Master's vault than V13 or 8, which I always thought to be really comfy, bright but cramped prisons. Obviously a minor nitpick, what hurt V101 for me was that it was not a typical open location but a linear chain of boring events.

 

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

The vault design didn't bother me, I figured the designs vary in different parts of the USA, My only issue was how rusted and dirty 101 was, I loved when Ian would be freaked with how clean 13 was.