IGN Fallout 3: Six Hours of Exploration

[mandrake776]

Right, which is a problem with the way that Bethseda's set up this Fallout game in the first place. It's set pretty much entirely in DC and some suburbs, yet somehow magically the protagonist can't leave the area. Compared to FO 1 and 2, that's just weird.

Yeah, it was just as absurd that you couldn't leave the west coast in the others. There has to be some boundary, does it matter if it's a 200 mile area or a 2000 mile area? It's still a lot of space for things to happen regardless.

 

[Moving Target]

In FO 1 and 2 it made sense too: to the east, it was all wastes. To the west, you could go as far as the ocean. I can't think of why north and south were off-limits, though.

 

[mandrake776]

In FO 1 and 2 it made sense too: to the east, it was all wastes. To the west, you could go as far as the ocean. I can't think of why north and south were off-limits, though.

The entirety of the map was wastes. The fact is, you're going to have arbitrary limits.

 

[Moving Target]

Yes, but, to bring this back full-circle: One of the worst choices you could make, especially when it comes to FPP, is to have invisible barriers delineating the end of the game world. On a map where your character is represented by an X or a dot or something it's not so noticeable. When it's right in your face, when you can see more world beyond the edge where you cannot go, it's far more obvious.

 

[mandrake776]

Yes, but, to bring this back full-circle: One of the worst choices you could make, especially when it comes to FPP, is to have invisible barriers delineating the end of the game world. On a map where your character is represented by an X or a dot or something it's not so noticeable. When it's right in your face, when you can see more world beyond the edge where you cannot go, it's far more obvious.

They. Are. Not. Invisible. Not as long as you have a map. It's reality breaking any way you want to do it. This is the method they chose, and I think it's an honest one.

 

[whirlingdervish]

how is an invisible wall better than having the character roam into an area pockmarked with bomb craters and otherwise insurmountable terrain that's thick with radiation which gets stronger the further they proceed until they die from a ridiculously high concentration of it? (so high that no matter what armor and meds you use you cant survive it past a certain point)

they could easily incorporate this into the game due to the mechanic they already have for being irradiated and they'd only have to make a 1 mile wide strip of uninhabitted wasteland on 3 sides of DC that's full of craters to give the impression that everything outside of DC was an impassable nuclear wasteland.

you need never hit the invisible wall if they do their job convincingly and kill you (or scare you back in the right direction) before you reach that point.

the damage being done to your character by the radiation would tip off all but the least intelligent of gamers.

putting a wall there pretty much says "we can't trust you dumbasses to watch your health so you don't die repeatedly from radiation and get pissed because you dont get why you died" when they have already hyped the surviving the deadly radiation aspect of the game as an integral part of questing in the wastes.

AFAIK the game even tells you when you recieve a large dose of radiation, and the geiger counter is in.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

First, your assertion that bs reasons for not liking fallout 3 are always called out is ridiculous, or you have a very different definition of bs.

Then link it or quote it.

Second, the link you posted refers mostly to invisible walls that don't tell you they're there. Oblivions map (which you always have access to) clearly shows the boundaries. Waist high impassable objects are much more frustrating.

No, it doesn't matter if you get a pop-up or not, they are still horrible because they cannot be seen. Waist high barriers are bad too but if they are consistent then it at least informs the player that there is an unsurmountable wall there. Are barriers that are clear taller than jump height or unsurmountable (canyon, cliff, ect) better? Of course they are.

But we are forgetting one thing about all of this edge of the map thing...the map. If you run into an ivisable barrier and go to your map, I'd assume that you would see yourself at the edge of the map and go..duh and go back...

I could be wrong but this is what I'd assume...

EDIT: I'd also assume that you would have been using your map every once and a while and saw that you were heading towards the edge of the map, so it should have come as no surprise...

It all depends on the map, this only really works when you have a minimap and they mark it on that map. When you have to go into another screen which prevents you from moving then it becomes a needless hassle but regardless, invisible walls are still crappy barriers. I think part of the problem comes from designers making worlds perfect geometric shapes (usually a square or rectangle) but if you allowed it to be more freeform then you could have more believable barriers created by a variety of natural landmass. Sure it's a bit contrived that you're completely boxed in but it feels and functions a hell of a lot better than invisible walls.

 

[mandrake776]

Sure it's a bit contrived that you're completely boxed in but it feels and functions a hell of a lot better than invisible walls.

Honestly, that pulls me out of a game more than the game saying "this is where you can go to" does. The other option I think would be best is to have nothing be so close to the outside edges of the map as to be worthwhile. Then you could put whatever there and no one would care.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Ok, if DC is an isolated hole in a radiation zone--- How did the BoS get there, how do people every come and go, why is the area around DC so irradiated, yet magically the area of DC is liveable.

I can hear it now, "The war was 200 years ago, how is there impassable radiation....."

Seriously, that would make no sense. There is nothing wrong with invisible walls. They define the game world.

I mean seriously, I just killed a bunch of mutants, and robots and such, but I can't jump or climb over a fence??

It is a game border. No different then any other game border.

BTW, I didn't play it much, but I could of sworn, oblivion used impassable mountains to surround the game world...

But irregardless, there was nothing limiting you from traveling east in the 1st 2 but an invisible barrier on the world map...

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Sure it's a bit contrived that you're completely boxed in but it feels and functions a hell of a lot better than invisible walls.

Honestly, that pulls me out of a game more than the game saying "this is where you can go to" does. The other option I think would be best is to have nothing be so close to the outside edges of the map as to be worthwhile. Then you could put whatever there and no one would care.

Alright then, how about function? Not being able to tell where an invisible wall is (a map that you have to open in a menu doesn't count) is extremely annoying when you're trying to explore the edge of a map. Having something denote the edge (even if it's just little balls of light) is nice so that the player can minimize the time wasted double checking that s/he hasn't veered off course by running into the invisible wall.

Seriously, that would make no sense. There is nothing wrong with invisible walls. They define the game world.

Instead of making open ended claims, make counter points to people's reasons that they are problems.

But regardless, there was nothing limiting you from traveling east in the 1st 2 but an invisible barrier on the world map...

Actually it was supposed to be a radioactive wasteland but regardless, running into the edge of a map when you're denoted by a dot is not only less immersion breaking but the barrier is absolute and visible. When you're watching your avatar or in FPP and can see an expanse of land ahead of you it's accepted that you can travel there but invisible walls destroy this natural and fair assumption. Using them for map barriers is bad but it's somewhat alright if that's where they're limited too.

It's a design problem and contradicts Bethesda's official reason for doing FPP which is that it allows them to make the most immersive experience possible. When you put in terrible design elements like invisible walls which not only break immersion for being blatantly artificial barriers but annoy and/or frustrate a lot of players which further breaks immersion and creates a situation where the player is not having fun (or as much fun).

 

[mandrake776]

(a map that you have to open in a menu doesn't count)

Just say "I'm not willing to reasonably discuss this."

It's a design problem and contradicts Bethesda's official reason for doing FPP which is that it allows them to make the most immersive experience possible. When you put in terrible design elements like invisible walls which not only break immersion for being blatantly artificial barriers but annoy and/or frustrate a lot of players which further breaks immersion and creates a situation where the player is not having fun (or as much fun).

It's not the best choice but it's not terrible either. Unless you go looking for the edge of the map, you're not likely to need to go anywhere near it.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

(a map that you have to open in a menu doesn't count)

Just say "I'm not willing to reasonably discuss this."

It's a usability issue. If you require the player to constantly open a menu to check their map (thus spending time not having fun and not making progress) you have an issue and are better off giving them a minimap.

It's a design problem and contradicts Bethesda's official reason for doing FPP which is that it allows them to make the most immersive experience possible. When you put in terrible design elements like invisible walls which not only break immersion for being blatantly artificial barriers but annoy and/or frustrate a lot of players which further breaks immersion and creates a situation where the player is not having fun (or as much fun).

It's not the best choice but it's not terrible either. Unless you go looking for the edge of the map, you're not likely to need to go anywhere near it.

It'll crop up as a problem if and when a player does go to the edge of the map. Just because not everyone does it and/or it only crops up in specific situations doesn't mean that it isn't a problem and it doesn't justify lazy and bad design. Using the specific situation excuse, why bother to have radiation sickness if the player is only going to come across it every once in a while?

 

[mandrake776]

It's a usability issue. If you require the player to constantly open a menu to check their map (thus spending time not having fun and not making progress) you have an issue and are better off giving them a minimap.

"Constantly"?

It'll crop up as a problem if and when a player does go to the edge of the map. Just because not everyone does it and/or it only crops up in specific situations doesn't mean that it isn't a problem and it doesn't justify lazy and bad design. Using the specific situation excuse, why bother to have radiation sickness if the player is only going to come across it every once in a while?

It's not worth making a big hullabaloo about if it only comes up incredibly rarely. It's not a reason to say "these developers don't care." They're spending time they could be using on this one more important/interesting parts of the game.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

It'll crop up as a problem if and when a player does go to the edge of the map. Just because not everyone does it and/or it only crops up in specific situations doesn't mean that it isn't a problem and it doesn't justify lazy and bad design. Using the specific situation excuse, why bother to have radiation sickness if the player is only going to come across it every once in a while?

It's not worth making a big hullabaloo about if it only comes up incredibly rarely. It's not a reason to say "these developers don't care." They're spending time they could be using on this one more important/interesting parts of the game.

Incredibly rarely? By that reasoning they shouldn't spend much time on any quest that you can only do once because you're not going to come across it much. This is the world and the rules that it operates by, you need to get the basics right. They've used invisible walls for their past two games and have had negative feedback on it for both and yet they aren't going to fix it? Yes, it will only come up for players who go to the edge of their world but they keep talking about how much a player can explore which means that they support the player doing this. When the player does reach the edge they won't all just hit it, say oops, and start walking in the opposite direction, many will follow the edge of the world in which case they will constantly be up against this poor design element. Again, it's not a huge problem but it's a notable one and it just adds to the pile along. Also, what are these bigger issues that they spent their time on instead? Big issues like AI (which has demonstrated itself to be stupid), RAI (the only improvement [that has been explicitly stated] over Oblivion is that NPCs can lean against walls), OTS camera (which has been said to be as bad as Oblivion's), pathfinding (we've heard about it getting hung up on terrain), ect.?

Also keep in mind that they said that their focus was on immersion so having something that so clearly breaks that which anyone, no matter what type of character they play, can and likely will come across, is a failure.

 

[Kyuu]

It is a game border. No different then any other game border.

Well, there is one difference: it's an invisible game border. Whereas other game borders would be, you know, not invisible.

BTW, I didn't play it much, but I could of sworn, oblivion used impassable mountains to surround the game world...

There were some mountains, yes, but there were still invisible boundaries with a message telling you to turn back.

I always love arguments that consist of "well it's not a game breaker so quit bitching," btw. (Not directed at you, Renegade.)

 

[Tigranes]

Ok, if DC is an isolated hole in a radiation zone--- How did the BoS get there, how do people every come and go, why is the area around DC so irradiated, yet magically the area of DC is liveable.

I can hear it now, "The war was 200 years ago, how is there impassable radiation....."

You know, this isn't a bad point. It *would* make a lot more sense to have in-world barriers than the invisible wall of doom, but then you'd still get an immersion kicker from wondering how people got here in the first place. Still, I think it's still better to have in-world barriers because that's a visual, direct thing and the other is a small backstory glitch (and we have a thousand of those in any backstories).

Frankly, and I thought this with Oblivion as well, Bethesda probably thought, "yeah, we could make cool real barriers, but we're better off spending time on other stuff. This isn't high priority." Which is a fair point. Invisible walls aren't that big a deal, and if they get chopped off the priority list, yeah, okay.

You could then raise a lot of questions about whether they have their priorities right and whether they should have thought about this before fiddling with teddy bear projectiles and Fatman, but that's sort of a different story.

 

[mandrake776]

Incredibly rarely? By that reasoning they shouldn't spend much time on any quest that you can only do once because you're not going to come across it much.

Hey, you beat that strawman real good.

I always love arguments that consist of "well it's not a game breaker so quit bitching," btw. (Not directed at you, Renegade.)

Probably at me. That's not what I said. I said it's not indicative of overall bad design. But if you actually address what people say, you can't feel all superior, huh?

 

[beverageleverage]

I have noticed that many people are jumping on the bandwagon of hatin' on Fallout 3 because they hate Bethesda. I have little more than cautious enthusiasm for a sequel to a couple of games that I love. It pisses me off as much as the idiots who pissed on Altar for bringing out a kind of spiritual sequel to XCOM, when they started nitpicking about "the character's cartoony graphics" (i'm not making this shit up, it was especially hilarious given the extreme comic-book type theme of XCOM).

Fallout 3 is not a spiritual successor and its major problems are not graphical. I dislike the complete destruction of what is Fallout: tabletop emulation, intelligent dialogue, choices and consequences, the list goes on. All that remains in Fallout 3 are names like enclave, brotherhood of steel, and SPECIAL. I shouldn't forget that it does still have a post apocalyptic setting, except it has some supremely ridiculous additions like nuclear catapults and exploding nuclear cars, as well as a general lack of respect for their destructive nature which caused the whole apocalypse thing to happen.

For me this is not a case of evolution and innovation in gaming, or a fear of change. I like every genre of game I can think of, and fallout 3 has absolutely nothing new to offer that hasn't been done already, barring the rape of the Fallout franchise specifically. I also do not need to hold my judgments until it has been released. The previews make it obvious that it is just another first person action game with some rpg elements that has nothing in common with the original games outside of a few names.

All of these points have been made several times for a number of people who don't bother reading ahead of time and trying to understand a different viewpoint than their own. Why does it "piss you off" so much that someone has a different opinion than you? Don't be such an intolerant fool.

 

[sai | GLYPH]

Invisible walls themselves are not evil.

It's the nature of the beast to see messages on screen.. to see a HUD.

The big issue is how it's dealt with.

Saying, "You cannot go any further." Is soulless. You see it in the perk descriptions Bethesda came up with too. None of it is in the spirit of the game.

Why not a message that says... "Nothing awaits me in the far wastes" or some variant.

Why not a soft border that allows you to travel a decent distance from the main game map. At a point, the screen fades out, and fades back in with you standing at the point at which you entered the soft border, with a message saying, "After extensive exploration, you found nothing and retraced your steps to [location]."

 

[Kyuu]

Incredibly rarely? By that reasoning they shouldn't spend much time on any quest that you can only do once because you're not going to come across it much.

Hey, you beat that strawman real good.

I see you're jumping on the strawman bandwagon without actually understanding the term. (No, quoting Wikipedia doesn't indicate an understanding of any topic.) He made a comparison which indicated a valid criticism of your argument, which seemed to be that if you encounter something rarely or only once (like you generally only encounter a quest once in a game) then not putting any effort or thought into that thing is a-ok.

Probably at me. That's not what I said. I said it's not indicative of overall bad design. But if you actually address what people say, you can't feel all superior, huh?

I also love arguments that consist of a snide comment about addressing what people say without actually addressing what anybody said. Obviously, I wasn't quoting anyone word for word, especially since that comment wasn't actually addressed at any one person in particular. It was merely aimed at the sort of bullcrap posts I've seen from many different people. However, let's go ahead and address your point.

So a bad design decision isn't indicative of overall bad design. Fine. My question is: how many points of shoddy design do you have to identify before you believe that it's reasonable to assert that the game is designed poorly overall?