GamesRadar - The Infinite Potential of Fallout 3

[mandrake776]

I consider well designed games properly designed games and well designed games don't allow you to break them. That said, I'm doubtful that not being able to kill children will break the game mechanically but it certainly will shatter the immersion when it happens.

So, in your opinion there have not been any well designed games?

In every case but one having the children present enhances immersion.

Don't be a jackass.

No, I was serious. I didn't say anything that would make you ask that of me.

Getting a game rated or rerated isn't that expensive and Bethesda obviously doesn't care about doing it considering the Australian rerating.

$4,000 American is not going to break the budget, but paying it twice isn't good practice. That's just for America, too. Do you honestly think it would have been more cost effective for them to simply cut Australia out of their market or pay to get it rerated? It's doubtful that they thought it would have been refused classification in the first place.

If they were morally opposed to killing children then they wouldn't include them in the first place, that's what previous games did.

The previous games had a different perspective which made it feel less personal.

Mortal children isn't going to give a game an AO rating, as proved by previous installments and Bioshock, so that argument is bogus.

Yes, censorship boards are always consistent.

As for negative press, all press is good press and controversial press is the best press for games like Fallout 3 (just look at GTA).

GTA only had adults, and is from what I hear, genuinely fun to play. The gameplay will out, but it can take a long time, and a smaller opening for a game that's been in development for four years is a much harder hit than a GTA game which was probably coded together in some guys basement with some particle board and woodscrews.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I'm not making an issue of it, your point was silly, so I deflected it with a joke. It's a joke, not a condemnation based on your ability to spell things.

Ah so, all's fine and well, lolz and rotflz all around.

Hint: Humor is not one of your strong points. Being offensive is.
And my point is anything but silly, oh great protector of the bit-composed defenseless and conqueror of creepy virtual killers.

 

[raunchy]

judging by the time it takes people to release true fallout 1/2 mods, we could be discussing the possibility of killing children in fallout 4.

 

[mandrake776]

Ah so, all's fine and well, lolz and rotflz all around.

Hint: Humor is not one of your strong points. Being offensive is.

Yeah, I'm taking humor lessons from you. Not likely.

And my point is anything but silly, oh great protector of the bit-composed defenseless and conqueror of creepy virtual killers.

Seriously. Read. My. Posts. Before you respond again. I have no problem with the idea of putting it in the game, I have an issue with people who are frothing at the mouth about it not being there.

 

[aenemic]

not that I want to be a target of all the flak mandrake has already received, but I feel like I have to kinda agree with him here.

I would prefer killable children. but I'm perfectly fine without it. and I do think it's a bit weird how some people make a huge deal about it.

I don't think it's about these people being sickos though, I think it's - like with many other things - a pure principle that they can't simply look past.

 

[Humpsalot]

I don't want to kill kids, but if I wipe out an entire town I want all the candy to myself.

 

[pkt-zer0]

Well, firstly, monetary ones. It costs money to rate a game and if the ESRB decides to give it an AO rating based on that it would greatly reduce their ability to get the game to market. Then, rerating costs money if they decide they don't want the AO rating. Not to mention the kind of negative press that could create.

Mammon truly is the greatest game designer of them all.

For another, aesthetic reasons. Perhaps they have a moral opposition to including it in a game that they're making.

When "violence is fucking funny" is their mantra, I find that concept charming. The same way Emil finds cutting off the heads of old ladies and pretending to talk to them charming.

 

[sarfa]

The concept of the game way back then was more organised than just having a kick about. Just having a kickabout is not playing to win, once you're playing to win, tactics become important and suddenly the core of the game is very similar to the core of chess. Often just having a kick about doesn't even involve goals of any description, something that has been key to football as a game since day one.

The core concepts of the game are very tactical in nature, like I said. So it is quit elike chess.

Comparing having a kick about to chess is just plain daft. It's like comparing surfing the internet to being stabbed in the stomach. If you meant having a kick about, you should have said that.

Football and chess are nothing alike and your argument is bogus. Chess is balanced (opponents have the same pieces) and completely dependent on the two player's abilities while football is a game that depends on many player's abilities and their ability to work together. The coach's role is entirely different from that of a chess player as the coach recruits and trains players but has little impact, other than substituting, on how the game is played while a chess player controls everything that their pieces do.

From the football managers (not coaches) perspective, the two are very similar. A football team working together is a result of good tactical planning- just like winning a chess game. This tactical planning is what managers (not coaches) are paid to do.

Yeah, the coahces role is very different, well done for bringing up coaches in the first place to make that point.

Managers plan the tactics their players will use, the coach trains them to do it competantly. But once the first whistle blows, the manager has little control over what happens next. Chess (and it's ancestors) are the original war game, games designed to simulate battles where the general plans the battle, it starts, the general loses all real control of what actually happens (welcome to the basic truth of ancient warfare).

To argue that both games are not about maximising the strengths of your pieces/players while minimising their weaknesses and to take advantage of the opponents weakness is simply to not understand either game.

Basically, from the football managers perspective, chess and football are very alike. Thats why some managers have been known to compare the two.

 

[mandrake776]

I don't want to kill kids, but if I wipe out an entire town I want all the candy to myself.

This is the single most valid post I've seen on this topic anywhere.

Mammon truly is the greatest game designer of them all.

Well, no, but at the same time we cannot ignore that it is a business and that their first and foremost goal is to make money.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Yeah, I'm taking humor lessons from you. Not likely.

Do you ever stop flamebaiting?

Seriously. Read. My. Posts. Before you respond again. I have no problem with the idea of putting it in the game, I have an issue with people who are frothing at the mouth about it not being there.

I. Have. Read. Your. Posts. Seriously. I. Am. Now. Responding. To. You. You. Have. Problem. With. People. Wanting. To. Kill. Virtual. Children. Virtual. As. In. Not. Real. As. In. Images. On. Your. Computer. Composed. Of. Pixels. Which. Are. Visual. Representation. Of. 1's. And. 0's. You. Seem. To. Think. These. People. Are. Creeepy.

Just like other people crusading against such ghastly acts against VIRTUAL (notice how I keep using that word?) poor VIRTUAL defenceless VIRTUAL (getting the message yet?) little VIRTUAL (even a moron would have got the message by now) children, you're full of hot air. There's nothing more wrong with blowing a virtual child to bits than there is with blowing a virtual adult. It's not wrong. It's not punishable by law. It's NOTHING LIKE DOING IT IN REAL LIFE.

Crusading for the rights of these bits not to be blown to bits when there's so much REAL pain and suffering experienced by actual REAL live children is what's truly creepy.

ANd besides. saying "why are children invincible" does not imply the willingness to kill them. I've never willingly killed a child in any of my many Fallout playthroughs, and I don't plan to. Yet I want to have killable children in my next Fallout. Not because I want to kill kids but because seeing one take a rocket to the face and living through it is simply stupid.

Edit: And because I enjoy killing whoever did it with shots to the groin before continuing on or reloading my last save (if it was Sulik or someone else from my party).

 

[mandrake776]

Just like other people crusading against such ghastly acts against VIRTUAL (notice how I keep using that word?) poor VIRTUAL defenceless VIRTUAL (getting the message yet?) little VIRTUAL (even a moron would have got the message by now) children, you're full of hot air. There's nothing more wrong with blowing a virtual child to bits than there is with blowing a virtual adult. It's not wrong. It's not punishable by law. It's NOTHING LIKE DOING IT IN REAL LIFE.

No fucking duh.

Crusading for the rights of these bits not to be blown to bits when there's so much REAL pain and suffering experienced by actual REAL live children is what's truly creepy.

Which is why I'm not doing that.

ANd besides. saying "why are children invincible" does not imply the willingness to kill them.

It's not "why are they" it's "wah, I want killable children". If it was why are they, I believe the devs themselves have explained it.

I've never willingly killed a child in any of my many Fallout playthroughs, and I don't plan to. Yet I want to have killable children in my next Fallout. Not because I want to kill kids but because seeing one take a rocket to the face and living through it is simply stupid.

Yes, reloading a save > not killing someone when lethally attacking with regards to immersion.

 

[Blazerfrost]

Killable children also makes you think twice about where you are pointing your gun, adding that extra element of tactics to combat which Bethsoft is trying so hard to avoid.

 

[DexterMorgan]

If it was why are they, I believe the devs themselves have explained it.

So why the fuck put them in a volent game at all in the first place? You seem to avoid answering that question.

Yes, reloading a save > not killing someone when lethally attacking with regards to immersion.

Are you being deliberately thick? Noone is forcing you to reload if you fuck up and kill a child, it's your choice to continue your game as a child killer with all the "perks" that entails or not. It's called "choice and consequence". On the other hand, a supermutant shooting a child in the face with a rocket launcher only to have it run away is called "stupid" (developer).

Which is why I'm not doing that.

The way you were going after "creepy" potential virtual child killers and proposing psychotherapy? Well, you could have fooled me!

Time for a spellcheck-deflection? Roflz and LoLz seem to be in short supply lately.

 

[mandrake776]

Killable children also makes you think twice about where you are pointing your gun, adding that extra element of tactics to combat which Bethsoft is trying so hard to avoid.

They're not intangible and hitting them still has negative consequences.

Time for a spellcheck-deflection? Roflz and LoLz seem to be in short supply lately.

Wow, you're really worth responding to.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

So, in your opinion there have not been any well designed games?

What? There are a lot of poorly designed games out there and no game has to be perfect but when a game can be broken it has a flaw and if it's easy and common then the game has a serious problem. For example, Oblivion's level scaling was broken and a major case of bad design. Why? Because it scaled based on your level which didn't have to be tied to any combat abilities which made it possible for combat to be a joke all of the way through or impossible depending on how the player played. As I said, killing children will probably not break the game mechanically.

No, I was serious. I didn't say anything that would make you ask that of me.

You said that anyone who wanted children to be mortal was a sicko. Which is also flaming by the way.

$4,000 American is not going to break the budget, but paying it twice isn't good practice. That's just for America, too. Do you honestly think it would have been more cost effective for them to simply cut Australia out of their market or pay to get it rerated? It's doubtful that they thought it would have been refused classification in the first place.

Morphine was included to do just what it did, create press about how edgy the game was by having it be denied classification in certain parts of the world.

The previous games had a different perspective which made it feel less personal.

Irrelevant and BS. Mortal Kombat was just as objected to as Doom as and it was TPP. Violence is violence and the perspective is unrelated to how it's rated, all that matters is how explicit and gory the violence is. Yes, FPP tends to have more explicit and gory deaths but it doesn't have to. Besides which, the UK had an issue with Fallout 1&2 but, as far as I know, not with Bioshock for killing children and Bioshock was in FPP.

Yes, censorship boards are always consistent.

Most are, the ESRB only bends when there is a large amount of political pressure.

GTA only had adults, and is from what I hear, genuinely fun to play. The gameplay will out, but it can take a long time, and a smaller opening for a game that's been in development for four years is a much harder hit than a GTA game which was probably coded together in some guys basement with some particle board and woodscrews.

Yes it only had adults but all of the press centered on it due to it's objectionable content only helped it's sales. I don't see where you get the idea that GTA games have less work put into them than Bethesda games and it's irrelevant to the impact that the controversy will have on the game.

Again, it's not about killing kids, it's about kids being able to die just like every other living thing. If you miss or a NPC misses and hits a kid for a fair amount of damage then the kid should die. Also what happens if I lure raiders into a town or raiders are attacking a town? Do they kill everyone but the kids? Do they shoot the kids and have them collapse and then get up later?

Not having kids in Fallout 3 and having most NPCs (all non-plot NPCs) be killable would be better than having indestructible kids with most NPCs (all non-plot NPCs) being killable.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Wow, you're really worth responding to.

I take exception to your thinly-veiled insult to my English, yes. Got a problem with that? Well then, better watch what kind of "jokes" you crack in the future.

Barring that, I'm ok with taking my gloves off for a full-on flame, you big joker you.

Oh, and feel free to respond to any of the points I made in the post you picked that from for your highly amusing and intelligent one-liner.

You joker you.

Edit: Oh, and LoL at you being unable to take your own (offensive) medicine. Either stick to arguing points or take what you asked for like a man.

 

[mandrake776]

What? There are a lot of poorly designed games...

Any game is breakable. That's the point I was trying to make.

You said that anyone who wanted children to be mortal was a sicko. Which is also flaming by the way.

Quote that, or rescind it.

Morphine was included to do just what it did, create press about how edgy the game was by having it be denied classification in certain parts of the world.

You assume. I think morphine was included to do just what it does. Numb pain.

Irrelevant and BS. Mortal Kombat was just as objected to as Doom as and it was TPP. Violence is violence and the perspective is unrelated to how it's rated, all that matters is how explicit and gory the violence is. Yes, FPP tends to have more explicit and gory deaths but it doesn't have to. Besides which, the UK had an issue with Fallout 1&2 but, as far as I know, not with Bioshock for killing children and Bioshock was in FPP.

I don't know how the little sisters were handled so I can't really speak to that. But I could easily see this causing a great furor and therefore:

Most are, the ESRB only bends when there is a large amount of political pressure.

putting political pressure on the ESRB.

Yes it only had adults but all of the press centered on it due to it's objectionable content only helped it's sales. I don't see where you get the idea that GTA games have less work put into them than Bethesda games and it's irrelevant to the impact that the controversy will have on the game.

I imagine that they have less work put into them because I've seen the engine and I've seen how many they put out just in the time since Bethesda started making Fallout 3.

Again, it's not about killing kids, it's about kids being able to die just like every other living thing.

Yeah. As I've said like thirty times, yeah, that's true.

Not having kids in Fallout 3 and having most NPCs (all non-plot NPCs) be killable would be better than having indestructible kids with most NPCs (all non-plot NPCs) being killable.

Why would that be better? Kids help immersion in the game and unless you're actively killing them, they don't hurt it at all.

 

[ookami]

I imagine that they have less work put into them because I've seen the engine and I've seen how many they put out just in the time since Bethesda started making Fallout 3.

That's quite an imagination you have there. So, tell us, when did Bethesda start 'making Fallout 3' and how many GTA games have been released in that time?

Yeah. As I've said like thirty times, yeah, that's true.

But we're still sickos for wanting the consequence to be more permanent than 'child runs away and some people get mad'? It might not be the biggest issue with the game, but it's another turd on the heap. Oh darn, they might get an AO rating and not be able to slip by with as many retail sales to kids.

 

[mandrake776]

That's quite an imagination you have there. So, tell us, when did Bethesda start 'making Fallout 3' and how many GTA games have been released in that time?

Isn't it 4 years? Rockstar has put out 4 GTA games.

But we're still sickos for wanting the consequence to be more permanent than 'child runs away and some people get mad'? It might not be the biggest issue with the game, but it's another turd on the heap.

Continuing to harp on it when you know damn well why they did it if you have at least half a brain is creepy. I never said sickos.

Oh darn, they might get an AO rating and not be able to slip by with as many retail sales to kids.

You don't know what AO means for publishing games.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Any game is breakable. That's the point I was trying to make.

Really? I can think of a lot of games which don't have game breaking flaws, let alone poor game design which allows for game breaking. StarCraft, Street Fighter II, Super Mario Brothers, and many more (don't feel like making a super long list but most games which are played competitively).

Quote that, or rescind it.

It's like you can't read. I said that having in the game isn't bad. It's when people get all up in arms because they can't kill children that it gets creepy.

Yeah, when I'm playing games, nothing pulls me out faster than not being able to kill children. If this kills your immersion, work on that, and see a psychologist.

No sicko, fine, the underlying message is the same when you said that people who want mortal children are creepy and require psychological treatment.

You assume. I think morphine was included to do just what it does. Numb pain.

Sure it's speculation but it's reasonable speculation based on the facts, there was only one drug named after a real drug and it was immediately removed and replaced for all versions of the game.

I don't know how the little sisters were handled so I can't really speak to that. But I could easily see this causing a great furor and therefore putting political pressure on the ESRB.

Only if it was advertised and only maybe then, otherwise it would be fine again, consider Bioshock. Parental controls can always be included in the game to minimize it as an issue. Also, you hit me for speculating and then do the very same thing in your next point?

I imagine that they have less work put into them because I've seen the engine and I've seen how many they put out just in the time since Bethesda started making Fallout 3.

They had a solid engine with which it was easy to make sequels. Also, time and effort do not directly translate into quality, talent plays the largest role in determining the maximum possible.

Why would that be better? Kids help immersion in the game and unless you're actively killing them, they don't hurt it at all.

What game has suffered from not having kids? Then of those games, which suffered far more from having unkillable NPCs? Neither Oblivion nor Morrowind had kids and it could have helped to have some but what they really suffered from was having unkillable NPCs. What you're suggesting is not only adding children (a small plus) but adding a new type of NPCs, all of which are killable (a huge minus). Also, kids got killed every now and then in previous Fallout games when the PC or the enemy missed and hit them so it does have an impact even if the player doesn't intentionally attack them (that's the whole point). Add in weapons with large area of effects like the Fat Man, exploding cars, and all other explosives.