Impressions thread for positive impressions

[Dead Guy]

Did you miss the military installations?

After my disgust with the ending had cleared I picked up the game again for a while, to go to some army base to the north. It looked pretty promising with launch codes and all but turned out to be another building infested with monsters with a safe and a computer in the middle of a maze of pointless office cubicles, a few different floors and some button to push. wooo! Getting in was no challenge, getting through it was no challenge and the reward was nonexistant. There was some talk of launch-codes... perhaps I actually missed some little nugget there and if so, then that's another little thing I actually would have liked. If it was not like the nukes you can drop from that sattelite dish place with Talon mercs and some female scientist you can't even talk to, which do diddley-squat when you drop them.

One can interpret your question two ways actually. I'm going to interpret it the only way that seems reasonable to me, and answer yes. I do miss the military installations. But that's just my opinion.

To Tom: Good for you. Stop reading this nonsense and go back to appreciating the things in life that brings you joy. I hope it doesn't bother you too much that some people might disagree with you.
Some people probably liked BOS, and could make the exact same post you just did against your opinion of it. Or they can argue back and forth about what parts of the game they liked or disliked like people do here, at least some of them.

Cheers

 

[Ausdoerrt]

I think Fallout 3 is definitely more rewarding to people who like exploration than people who like dialogue.

If you like "exploring" in F3 than your standards are pretty low. Most of the time you just "explore" ways to grind more loot. Another 10000 caps, but no Military Base or something like that.

I believe that's what he meant. Let me rephase: "Fallout 3 is a game for people who like mindless grinding rather than any kind of (even remotely) intellectual experience".

 

[Corvin]

Err, okay. You said there weren't any military installations. There were. As far as I'm concerned... a grind is something you're obligated to take part in to level. I never felt obligated to do much in that regard. I mostly just avoided random combat that I didn't want to take part in.

I get it that you're filled with hate for the game. I just thought that, personally, the Wasteland environment was one of the things they did pretty well with. I had fun not using fast travel and just wandering and bumping into sidequests as I got to them. My main exloration gripe was that I wish the 'old books' were fleshed out and readable.

I far preferred wanderng to the main quest... which I was unimpressed by. Someone else had similar sentiments, so I was agreeing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think my point regarding not everybody agreeing what an RPG is is well made at this point.

Also... no computer game comes close to matching tabletop or LARP.

I think one should not throw LARP and table top role playing in the same range though. It has some small but important difference. Most people that play RPGs together do not play it in a way that they "are" the characters while many forget this in LARPing and some can not even draw the line between their self and the character they play. Role Playing has the meaning to jump in something and act outside of your usual frame. I know quite a lot of game-masters that emidiately stop the game as soon someone refers to his hero as "I". As like they would be realy playing the hero instead of a created character. There was even a movie thats adressing in a very exagerated maner the situation with Tom Hanks (yes I am old .. no I am not just joking) with the name Mazes and Monsters.

...
We're speaking on a different level, you're trying to address far broader aspects of the genre, arguing that an RPG should present depth, I'm simply attempting to explain the basics of the genre, what an RPG is, not what it should be.

Well I guess we can agree here. I guess I am arguing here more about the idealistict view about RPGs I have in mind where statistics and the outcome of them should be a mutual reaction. But on the other side, it would be intersting (for the case you played) if you think The Witcher is a "RPG". Well I ask cause statistics really almost play no real role in the game to say it that way. It doesnt mean its not a great game, I like it. But from the many times I played the game it really made not any differences which skills I have choose. But well that might not be as important even since you always play the "Role" of a Witcher. Anyway, I am usut curious.

Did you miss the military installations?

You mean the many there were only filled with generic cockroaches/raiders/robots/mercernaries and unrewarding loot? Yes I missed those since there is no reason to enter those locations. Only a handfull of locatoins in Fallout 3 are really worth to be seen, and even those that have something more inside then "kill everything that moves and collect all stuff" like the Dunwich building feel extremly unrewarding in the end. Nothing as interesting like the Glow, Siera Army depot, or the abadoned military based with the dead enclave. And even to get the loot out of the traper cave was a lot more rewarding cause I had not to spend 20 min searching in the whole cave to get the bozar and some other good stuff inside. I just had to pass a repair and lock-pick check and kill a roboter inside and to say that in the end it feelt a lot more rewarding then many of the generaic Bethesda dungeons. But everyone likes different things I guess.

Buy the way I thought RPGs are about intelligent dialogues and adventure games about "exploring" or did I understood something wrong? Since that is what both Oblivion and Fallout 3 are. Adventure games then (and the later a adventure game with some dialogues here and there).

(...) "Fallout 3 is a game for people who like mindless grinding rather than any kind of (even remotely) intellectual experience".

The thing is that Bethesda makes RPGs for people that usualy dont like RPGs.

 

[Corvin]

Ft. Constantine had one of the few examples of rewarding loot in the entire game.

Using lockpick and stuff like that is supposed to bypass combat.

There's no law somewhere that says RPGs can't be about exploring or adventure games about dialogue. Explorer is one of the RPG gamer archtypes.

 

[Darkform]

the difference is FO1 and 2 are hardcore RPGs. FO3 is not.

(some people will try to say Monopoly is a RPG just because you are playing the role of someone trying to become a millionaire.)

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well I guess we can agree here. I guess I am arguing here more about the idealistict view about RPGs I have in mind where statistics and the outcome of them should be a mutual reaction. But on the other side, it would be intersting (for the case you played) if you think The Witcher is a "RPG". Well I ask cause statistics really almost play no real role in the game to say it that way. It doesnt mean its not a great game, I like it. But from the many times I played the game it really made not any differences which skills I have choose. But well that might not be as important even since you always play the "Role" of a Witcher. Anyway, I am usut curious.

I'd say that is because Witcher seems to separate the story and the battle quite a bit. What skills you choose definitely affects your combat ability a lot, and if you're playing on hard, you'd better be thinking a lot about it. In short different ways to do the battles that do not affect the story that much (unless the character is so poorly developed that you cannot get through a key battle).

The story, while not affected by skills, is built upon the choice-consequence system. Since there are no speech skills involved, it makes it slightly different from a classical RPG.

Ft. Constantine had one of the few examples of rewarding loot in the entire game.

Using lockpick and stuff like that is supposed to bypass combat.

There's no law somewhere that says RPGs can't be about exploring or adventure games about dialogue. Explorer is one of the RPG gamer archtypes.

'Course there;s no law like that. There are some pretty decent explorer-RPGs (Lionheart comes to mind). My problem with FO is that only about one out of 25 locations, at best, has anything worthwhile to see, or even loot. A lot of them are just your copycat empty buildings or dungeons with no loot aside from a bunch of household items and bottlecaps, and perhaps some ammo, and no story behind them.

What I also noticed was that lockpick did little beyond giving you extra loot, and rarely if at all bypassed combat. Sneak barely helped either.

 

[Crni Vuk]

To say that though. It would not even bother me so much that Fallout 3 has so many different places and dungon like structures if the computers, turrets and anything else in this locations would not work in almost perfect conditions as like the bombs never would have been droped. It would make much more sense if you wold have a lot of abadoned empty places without ANY kidn of technology and a few very good usefull places that have a meaning and some background story.

If one compares Fallout 1/2 with Fallout 3 in that then frankly, yes you had a lot less places to visit here outside of the communities, like the Siera Army depot for example. But this places needed some player interaction most of the time at least. You had to get somehow inside the army depot for example, and you needed somewhat to get the glow runing again and if you tried to get inside it without rad x and rad aways it would have been a very shoort visit. Same to the traper cave. You needed certain skills to make the elevator run again. I never seen ANY situation in Fallout 3 wheer you REALLY needed your repair skills. The world runs like on the first day, computers, doors and saftey systems work in perfect conditions. And ready for the player to loot regardless of all the enclave, brotherood, raiders, mercenaries, traders and communities that are no 5 min. away from the positions.

 

[Twizman]

Isometric is better

Bethesda suckworks

World doesn't make sense canonically

Stupid sideshow amusement park

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ Wow new this is

Person with surprising contribution

Strange speech patterns

Reason?

 

[gregor_y]

Isometric is better

I said same thing except it was:

2d is better than 3d...

And did someone agread nope...now they got 3d candy and crapy gameplay...

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ You are both missing the point, you are.

2D better than 3D? BS, 3D graphic is definitely a nice tech innovation, and there is no reason not to use it. A lot of world-famous classic games are 3D. Even FO1/2 use rendered 3D sprites.

Isometric better? There is a load of great non-isometric games, some of them are RPGs too.

Design choice has little to do with game quality.

 

[Brother None]

Design choice has little to do with game quality.

That's a bit of a brain twister.

If you're trying to say a game can be good regardless of preferred 2d/3d engine or isometric/first-person view, then of course. They are just gameplay modes, and it is best to take whatever fits what you're trying to accomplish best - Fallout was a pen and paper emulating RPG, so isometric TB worked best for it, Fallout 3 was an FPSRPG, so first-person RT worked best for it.

 

[Rev. Layle]

Oddly enough, I never had a problem with F3 being an FPSRPG - if the writing was better (and better scripted out main plot) and *some* of the world design choices were better, regardless if it was TB or RT, it could have been a great game.

Right now, to me, it is just a decently fun game with some infuriating dialouge and scripting. However, I won't replay this nearly as much as F1 and F2.

 

[Patton89]

FP can work well in RPGs like ISO. It just depends if they are well implemented and used. Morrowind was good rpg, not amazing but good. Daggerfall was great. Iso Fallouts were great.
My gripes with f3 is that it has bad story, bad dialogue and bad NPCs just to mention few. And it butchers Fallout gameplay mechanics, like SPECIAL and perks.

 

[AthasPrime]

Question for the forum.

Are the gaming industry incapable of supporting the hardcore gamers without going bankrupt? Are there no means of satisfying the mainstream audience and yet at the same time delivering something more for the hardcore masses yearning to breath free?

the difference is FO1 and 2 are hardcore RPGs. FO3 is not.

I agree with above, though admittedly this isn't necessarily a negative thing for me. I am partial to RPG fusion genre games (ie Gothic 1&2).

... it is just a decently fun game with some infuriating dialouge and scripting.

Agreed, as I start exploring the world of FO3, (much delayed by a belated discovery of restoration project which had caught my interest for the past 2 months!).


If I'm playing an RPG game, I want more then anything else, a good story. Characters I associate with must be interesting. I mean, other then that, what do we really have? We all know how most of these stories will end with some variation of good over evil. What we're interested in seeing is how we get there. That's what makes even linear RPG games (FF series) a franchise success to this day.

I notice many references to Oblivion which I personally never played, so excuse me if I compare the Fallout franchise to a lesser known, if not equally well respected European counterpart - the Gothic series.

Gothic I was a project of love by a small but dedicated group out in Europe (Pirahna Bite) who wanted to create the ultimate rpg game, kinda like what Interplay/Black Isle did in FO1. Gothic I came out during a transition time period when text based games were being slowly replaced by in game dialogues. Yet, for the most part, there was no compromise in the interesting dialogues, subplot and side story lines. You really felt like you walked into a world where the NPC had things to do and were not simply there standing around waiting for the main protagonist to initiate conversation with them. This was immersion on the next level. Admittedly the main quest was nothing original, but the subplots and sidequests and simply the freedom to do whatever and whenever (except some game spoiling limitations) made it a special experience.

Gothic II was an extenstion of that determination, and built upon the successful formula of its predecessor to create something on a grander scale. The sheer size of the game made it lose some of the tight story plot of its predecessor but overall it was a minor price.

So far, the above description can fit verbatim to FO1 & 2, other then the text v talking heads. So what happens next to the Gothic franchise shouldnt be too surprising.

Pirahna successfully targetted a very dedicated segment of the gaming population, who's enthusiasm was off the wall. The only thing was, it was also a very small segment of the gaming population. In the end, the company went broke/bankrupt/dissolved and got bought out by a new company promissing to stick to the spirit of the Gothic and build upon something bigger and better with the next sequel.

Sounds familiar?

In order to cater to a larger segment of the gaming population, Gothic 3 became more mainstream. In other words, it got dumbed down. Gone were tricky combat timings. No more scary moments when facing a wolf (or worse) with nothing a but a tree branch or a dagger early in the game meant certain death if you happen to wander outside of town carelessly. Gone were all the interesting NPC characters that made the world so much more believable and entertaining, even if not exactly relevant to the main plot.

One of my favorite non sequitur moment was waiting for a rich snob to walk down an empty alley after a late night of drinking and clubbing the fool unconscious and taking his purse without anyone else being the wiser. The now robbed snob was unable to pay his bar tab and ended up getting further beaten down by the bartender next night. What did this have to do with saving the world? Absolutely nothing. Yet it added a flavor of high entertaintment and realism.

I can forgive canon inconsistencies, different combat system, a return to greater plot linearity, even a loss of that subtle essence which makes a sequel game a true sequel and not something cut and pasted. But dont insult our intelligence with an RPG that is missing a big chunk of what makes an RPG.

Armed with Gothic 3's dissapointment, FO3 holds no unrealistic expectation from me. As a result, I might even be able to enjoy the game for what it is. But it leaves me with a greater question of concern.

Are intricate games a thing of the past? Do market competitions make it harder for these gems to survive?

 

[Commiered]

Good question AthasPrime, and a great example with Gothic. I don't think that Piranhna Bytes failed with Gothic 1 and 2. They had a lot of problems with the groups they were associated like Phenomedia and at the end Jowood. Without all these distractions they could have made a neat profit in the end through direct sales to customers. Stardock is doing well like this and has been catering to a very niche sector with its Galactic Civilizations franchise for years.

The biggest problem I see for small dedicated groups is they don't have a good business model or plan to get their games out there for the smallest cost. They often seem to get screwed by publishers who give them money, but expect unreasonable return in a very short period of time. They then tend to keep all the earnings, a lot of the revenue paying to keep the bureaucracy going.

I think that Hard-core RPG's can succeed, just like hard-core 4X space games have managed to. Sins of a Solar Empire has shown that even a niche product can look good as well.

Sure an RPG is far more complex, but if Piranha Bytes could make an innovative game like Gothic on a shoestring, why can't it be done now?

 

[UniversalWolf]

I think one way to define a baseline for what an RPG really is would be to look at their humble beginnings as an extension of the tabletop wargame. Gygax and Arneson took most of the tactical elements from those impersonally epic games and brought them down to a personal level with each player controlling a single character as opposed to one or more divisions of an army(ies). It did become more focused on storytelling, but that wasn't the most important part. Instead, the storytelling, in many ways, seemed incidental to the underlying mechanics of the game. Important, yes. The end all be all? No.

What you've just described is taking a game that is all mechanics (tabletop wargames) and adding a layer that functions beyond the mechanics (roleplaying). Storytelling instantly and profoundly differentiates D&D from the simple the combat simulator that spawned it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Question for the forum.

Are the gaming industry incapable of supporting the hardcore gamers without going bankrupt? Are there no means of satisfying the mainstream audience and yet at the same time delivering something more for the hardcore masses yearning to breath free?
...

They did in the past, why should they not today`?

And to say that I dont even believe one minute the "only hardcore gamer" would enjoy it. Think about it. The people who love and loved the "old" Rpgs are not suddenly dead nor is the market going away only cause you have today a lot more opportunities to reach many gamers compared to maybe 10 or 15 years ago when not every hosuehold had easy acces to the net.

Of course "true" RPGs could sell well today. If you would concentrate on the things that make it a RPG and try to push that in the deployment and comercials. A revolution in "real" dynamic RPG game worlds and NPC AI is already long overdue.

The thing is just that making a good RPG is a lot more time-consuming and needs much more skills compared to adventure games like Oblivion that most of the time end in some strange hack-fest. Or FPS-RPG hybrids like Fallout 3. You have to come up not only with good and resonable game mechanics but as well with a story that supports this mechanics and works with it and a world that feels authentic cause of it. Fallouts world did feelt very authentic when it comes to that. But when comparing the writting today of either games like Kotor, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and a few more games to the work of the past one can definetly see that it either has become much less (cause of fully voiced dialogues) or just bad in quality (Fallout 3, Oblivion).

If they would start to work again with the RPG market as focus instead of catching a straw in every corner the games definetly would become a better quality again. Not just in the writting. But tone would have as well to realise that you can not then aim at the same level like CoD or Hallo 3 that server a totally different need! (short, fast pased experiences).

What they do try today is making racing cars for the poor men, doing RPGs for "everyone" (one size fitts all aproaches you can see sadly almost evrywhere today ...). Of course the mechanics and other parts of the game get watered down in the process. Sadly.


*hint
And to those people that say "but this companies could not survive if they only aim for the RPG market". Well
1 ) Interplay drowned and went out of buisness EXACTLY CAUSE they tried for good or for evil to make a 'big' mass market their target audience (See Tactics, See BoS) and even canceled Fallout 3 for that.
2 ) Even Bethesda that SEEMED to be healthy all the time would have been already a few times completely out of buisness if it would not be for the help of Bit brother(hood [phun intended]) Zenimax.

 

[Critter]

They did in the past, why should they not today`?

Times have changed, it seems. It became a large market. To me, it feels like things are going the way of the music industry. Mass produced shit coming from the big guys up top because that's what 'studies' and 'market analysis' shows that people "want". So, they pitch those findings to an investor and it goes from there.

And to say that I dont even believe one minute the "only hardcore gamer" would enjoy it. Think about it. The people who love and loved the "old" Rpgs are not suddenly dead nor is the market going away only cause you have today a lot more opportunities to reach many gamers compared to maybe 10 or 15 years ago when not every hosuehold had easy acces to the net.

One complaint that I've heard from older gamers is that they're grown up now with kids and a full time job. Sure, they still appreciate a good title with multiple endings and good replayability, but they don't really have the time dedicated to unlocking all of those tidbits of goodness in a title. Is that everyone older gamer? No. Are there younger gamers coming in that still want/appreciate that? Yes. Unfortunately, we seem drowned out by people who want the next equivalent of a Britney Spears album game title.

Of course "true" RPGs could sell well today. If you would concentrate on the things that make it a RPG and try to push that in the deployment and comercials. A revolution in "real" dynamic RPG game worlds and NPC AI is already long overdue.

I agree with you, but unfortunately the key words could and well are drowned out by words like will and huge.

The thing is just that making a good RPG is a lot more time-consuming and needs much more skills compared to adventure games like Oblivion that most of the time end in some strange ... *snip*
... Fallouts world did feelt very authentic when it comes to that. But when comparing the writting today of either games like Kotor, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and a few more games to the work of the past one can definetly see that it either has become much less (cause of fully voiced dialogues) or just bad in quality (Fallout 3, Oblivion).

I'd venture to say it wouldn't take too much longer to do. Projects like those require good direction and a great vision as well as managing time and priorities. Yes, I think full voice acted dialogues can be limiting if done incorrectly. Mass Effect seemed to do pretty decently at it even though it was a big jarring when what you clicked isn't what came out of the characters mouth.

All in all, it seems games are taking a direction of "less talk, more fight" and right now, doesn't seem any hardcore RPGs for a mass market will do all that well. Why sink money into an RPG title that may or may not do well when you can sink money into Madden 2157 that is guaranteed to sell, blah blah blah...

If they would start to work again with the RPG market as focus instead of catching a straw in every corner the games definetly would become a better quality again. Not just in the writting. But tone would have as well to realise that you can not then aim at the same level like CoD or Hallo 3 that server a totally different need! (short, fast pased experiences).

Why make one title that someone can play for years and years when you can make a title someone will play for about 6 months in preparation of buying the next title 6 months after that?

I'm not defending this in any way, but it really feels that's the direction things are going.