mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
Wow. There's a strawman bandwagon? I've ridden on a hay ride, is it like that?Kyuu said:
Yes, you do.
IGN Fallout 3: Six Hours of Exploration
- Thread starter The Vault Dweller
- Start date
Still Mildly Glowing
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
How do you operate a computer?4rekl said:
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
4rekl said:
mandrake776 said:
You were unclear, apology accepted.
I'm not sure that travelling through an invisible wall is such a simple concept, but then maybe you've had more experience with this.
If a bus was blocking a tunnel, I could accept that others might find a way through even if I couldn't. An invisible wall could prove tricky though.
mandrake, you're being an ass. Strike for trolling.
And this thread is going nowhere at this rate. Either debate the subject as sensible adults or watch is disappear into the vats.
And this thread is going nowhere at this rate. Either debate the subject as sensible adults or watch is disappear into the vats.
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
well 4rekl, the idea of an invisible wall isn't that the wall is actually there, it is that it keeps the player from spending time wondering about where there isn't anything. It isn't an acual barrier in the world conceptually as it is a line of demarkation where the developer decided that for the purposes of your adventure in this game, here is where the "character" would have no reason to continue further out for the purposes of this game.
Sure, I would love it if they had handled the wastes around DC as a random encounter heaven where the maps are randomly created and there are things to wonder into kind of like the "Blight" in the wheel of time. But, I imagine that would take an extreme amount of work and memory to do.
As it is, for its purposes, an invisible wall serves its purpose the same as a cyclone fence or anything else. Would you rather have invincible enclave patrols telling you there is nothing to see here???
Sure, I would love it if they had handled the wastes around DC as a random encounter heaven where the maps are randomly created and there are things to wonder into kind of like the "Blight" in the wheel of time. But, I imagine that would take an extreme amount of work and memory to do.
As it is, for its purposes, an invisible wall serves its purpose the same as a cyclone fence or anything else. Would you rather have invincible enclave patrols telling you there is nothing to see here???
sai | GLYPH said:
Agreed. People are discussing here which is better, invisible or visible walls, we should discuss how they implemented it, and as usual it's poorly implemented. The walls are a necessity in sandbox games like these, but why not give us a good visible wall or a good written excuse in pop up text with the invisible one.
Edit: they could even mix them right, have both solutions in different places.
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Texas Renegade said:
But, in practice, it is an invisible wall. Surely it is much better to handle the barrier in a way that maintains the illusion that I have decided to turn back, or that some element of the ingame world has forced that choice upon. Invisible walls are nothing so much as the hand of god.
Texas Renegade said:
People keep reframing this as a choice between two polar opposites, but there are any number of ways of handling boundaries, falling along a continuum between invisible walls and fully-implemented, expansive, and various wastelands. To ignore the happy compromise is to be either an apologist for poor design, or to unrealistically set youself against the demand for pragmatism in delivering a product.
Invisible walls can be handled badly - simply by abruptly telling a player that they can go no further - or in a slightly more satisfying manner by the use of well written reasons to stop. Still, these techniques are much less preferable to intelligently using exactly the kind of natural obstacles and barriers one might expect in a post apocalyptic world - none of which needs to be system-hungrily interactive.
Texas Renegade said:
But it doesn't, because it also serves to remind the player of the artificiality of the game world.
Anyway, I think that the complaint mainly lies with the difference between Bethesda's stated design philosophy of unbroken immersion, and the actual design of the game.
Seymour the spore plant
Still Mildly Glowing
I tend not to like invisible walls, all the more in this case because it is clearly another unfortunate byproduct of the move to FP perspective, but adding a bit of flavor to the text could really do wonders to improve it.
Since "immersion" plays such a huge role for Bethesda, one has to wonder why they insist on the single most jarring way ever devised to inform the player that he can't go somewhere; there's really no way to break the fourth wall more bluntly than by having the game itself tell you this sort of stuff. Hell, any standard "I can't stray too far or I'll never find my father" internal monologue would be better.
Now, the originals didn't make a point to hide the fact that you're playing a game - instead, the rules were out in the open, characters moved around like miniatures in tabletop, etc, all in the spirit of emulating pen-and-paper RPGs. One can't really compare both approaches if they're serving different purposes.
Since "immersion" plays such a huge role for Bethesda, one has to wonder why they insist on the single most jarring way ever devised to inform the player that he can't go somewhere; there's really no way to break the fourth wall more bluntly than by having the game itself tell you this sort of stuff. Hell, any standard "I can't stray too far or I'll never find my father" internal monologue would be better.
Now, the originals didn't make a point to hide the fact that you're playing a game - instead, the rules were out in the open, characters moved around like miniatures in tabletop, etc, all in the spirit of emulating pen-and-paper RPGs. One can't really compare both approaches if they're serving different purposes.
beverageleverage said:
Apart from the tabletop emulation, I haven't seen any evidence of the game losing intelligent dialogue, choices or consequences. If the tabletop emulation was a big part of the original Fallout games (I never noticed, I wasn't aware it was based on a tabletop system when I played them) then I can see why that might irk you.
See, the bolded part is where I think many of the problems lie. This isn't just another game that offers absolutely nothing, its Fallout. And its for that reason that I think its getting such a hard time from people. I seriously doubt some of the complaints about it would even be getting tossed as much as they are getting here around if it were a stand-alone without the Fallout title. And given that assumption, it gives me reason to doubt the sincerity of a lot of the complaints.
If this game had no connection to Fallout whatsoever, except the general theme, would some of the complaints here still exist? (A rhetorical question, I'll leave that up to the reader to decide).
A difference of opinion does not piss me off. If someone thinks a game sucks because of a silly feature or particular "way" a game works, and they only complain about it not because the feature itself is bad (Hence my comment on them complaining about Afterlight's cartoonish character animation), but because the game is connected to pet game of theirs of which they are over-protective, then I think I am in the right to call them on it. I'm more than happy to tear a game apart based on its own merits. Which is not what they were doing.
By the way, I have been called a liar and a fool in this thread and have recieved a strike for responding in heat to the liar accusations. I still apologise for my eariler behaviour, but am I to expect fair treatment here, or am I to expect favoritism against me due to my non-orthodox views?
sonicblastoise
First time out of the vault
the main argument here is that bethesda is full of liars. whether PR people, developers, artists, music directors, creative directors...
they've consistently said they were going to deliver a certain product, described using either "catchwords" or "nostalgia" knowing WELL what those words evoke, and have failed to deliver on them. critics here are just pointing out those inconsistencies to the nth degree. if you disagree, then say it and support it. so far most rebuttals to these inconsistencies seem to be "hey it's not a big deal" or "cut them slack, they're doing the best they can"
neither of which is a valid argument.
this leads me, and others who lurk and don't post, to be that much less excited about this game. not because the videos aren't good or because the previews aren't revealing, but because there has been a CONSISTENT disregard for TRUTH and HONESTY in this hype campaign. there are almost NO mitigating elements to the blatant misuse of the franchise's name and history. and it's disturbing.
my 2c
they've consistently said they were going to deliver a certain product, described using either "catchwords" or "nostalgia" knowing WELL what those words evoke, and have failed to deliver on them. critics here are just pointing out those inconsistencies to the nth degree. if you disagree, then say it and support it. so far most rebuttals to these inconsistencies seem to be "hey it's not a big deal" or "cut them slack, they're doing the best they can"
neither of which is a valid argument.
this leads me, and others who lurk and don't post, to be that much less excited about this game. not because the videos aren't good or because the previews aren't revealing, but because there has been a CONSISTENT disregard for TRUTH and HONESTY in this hype campaign. there are almost NO mitigating elements to the blatant misuse of the franchise's name and history. and it's disturbing.
my 2c
sonicblastoise
First time out of the vault
look, i applaud you for your openmindedness and your big heart, but every time i see you post, it chafes of naivete and pipe dreams. the truth is that this game deserves a little more bad rap in the mainstream. game journalists, en masse, have largely given this game a free ride into gaming rockstardom, BEFORE IT HAS EVEN COME OUT. on the other side of that same token, NMA has largely condemned it.
it seems those people upset at NMA for doing so feel like they should not be "taking this game so seriously." if anything, the critics on this forum are some of the few who are taking this game seriously enough. games have become, and have been for a long time, much more than simply entertainment. so far, previews and "sneak peeks" have done little to disabuse those of us "hardcore" gamers of the notion that this game is more than "simply entertainment." but this is really what they ought to be doing, because that is what bethesda said they were attempting to do.
at least, that was what was implied when they took the name "Fallout 3."
it seems those people upset at NMA for doing so feel like they should not be "taking this game so seriously." if anything, the critics on this forum are some of the few who are taking this game seriously enough. games have become, and have been for a long time, much more than simply entertainment. so far, previews and "sneak peeks" have done little to disabuse those of us "hardcore" gamers of the notion that this game is more than "simply entertainment." but this is really what they ought to be doing, because that is what bethesda said they were attempting to do.
at least, that was what was implied when they took the name "Fallout 3."
sonicblastoise said:
Oh absolutely, I agree that too much hype is a bad thing. But you seem to think I think the game is going to rock my socks off. I don't. I learned quite some time ago not to expect the moon from a game no matter the hype.
Bioshock was a perfect example. It was physically impossible for a game to live up to the hype Bioshock was released to. And in the end, even disregarding the let-down from the hype, I didn't think the game was anywhere near as good System Shock 2. Sure, the effects were gorgeous, and it had a good plot and some good ideas, but it lacked an intangible property I felt from SS2 - a certain quality I doubt will ever be replicated simply because the first time was when that ground was broken and no experience is ever as good as the first (imho).
Fallout 3 will not live up to hype. Of that, there can be no doubt. The nature of PR is to promise the moon, even if all you can really do is look at it through a telescope and think "damn, not quite what I expected" v
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
This is the attitude that baffles me. You can't know that any more than anyone knows it will be good except the people who have played it.PiCroft said:Fallout 3 will not live up to hype. Of that, there can be no doubt. The nature of PR is to promise the moon, even if all you can really do is look at it through a telescope and think "damn, not quite what I expected" vv
mandrake776 said:This is the attitude that baffles me. You can't know that any more than anyone knows it will be good except the people who have played it.PiCroft said:Fallout 3 will not live up to hype. Of that, there can be no doubt. The nature of PR is to promise the moon, even if all you can really do is look at it through a telescope and think "damn, not quite what I expected" vv
I'm not saying it will be no good, but that it won't live up to the hype. Its my experience that no game ever does.
Every game I've ever been amped up about turned out to be a disappointment if only because it did not deliver the experience I was encouraged to expect. Perhaps I stated my case above too strongly, so I'll reword it:
I am almost certain that Fallout 3 will not live up to the hype I have seen and experienced.
sonicblastoise
First time out of the vault
yes, well that's comforting to hear. i knew from your previous posts that you had some sense in you.
to be honest, i'm now much more excited for the enormous "I TOLD YOU SO" from one side or the other once this game comes out. but, seeing as how the debate thus far has come along, the screams from one side are sure to be just as loud as the protests from the other.
pardon my digression, but it almost reminds me of this little game called "God Hand" from Clover...
IGN, Gamespy, 1up, and many other sites gave it a 3.2, and only gamespot gave it an 8. it was the best $20 i ever spent on my PS2. and the best 25 hours i've ever spent beating a game 6 times.
to be honest, i'm now much more excited for the enormous "I TOLD YOU SO" from one side or the other once this game comes out. but, seeing as how the debate thus far has come along, the screams from one side are sure to be just as loud as the protests from the other.
pardon my digression, but it almost reminds me of this little game called "God Hand" from Clover...
IGN, Gamespy, 1up, and many other sites gave it a 3.2, and only gamespot gave it an 8. it was the best $20 i ever spent on my PS2. and the best 25 hours i've ever spent beating a game 6 times.
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
I dunno, the only real hype I've heard is people giving it Game of the Year buzz, which Oblivion got. It makes sense to think that they have a chance of making another game of the year if only because of their previous success.