Impressions thread for positive impressions

[TyloniusFunk]

Gametrailers tends to have silly console arguments and whatnot..but it really isn't that bad of a place. So you take a few examples of someone having fun with the game on youtube..and name the general gaming community "low attention span illiterate morons" granted alot of these people are just kids who haven't matured yet having fun. But you guys(not everyone mind you) try to make it seem like your somehow more intelligent or "better" than everyone else just because you've finished "smarter" games. The kids who think everything 5 minutes ago sucks will mature...and the rest are just having fun. I like my fair share of "dumb" and "intelligent" games. I don't play games just so i can stroke my IQ..i play em to have fun.

If something isn't stroking my IQ, I'm not having fun. That's not your problem, it's mine. Bethesda pretended like they were going to stroke my IQ, oh boy, they hyped it up good... but no, in the end they were torrid IQ teases. The bastards.

 

[Blackfyre]

not suprising that this thread got hijacked by people who like on a crusade try to convince the group of players that actually like the game that their enjoyment is misplaced. The main argumentation is as always comparison with the prequels and rejecting the idea of a different gaming concept by default.
Well its obvious that the whole stance "a few (that know the truth) against the mainstream flow (since media and a large majority of the game community did receive the game very positive, by far better that the originals) keeps NMA alive. Afterall this site activity is by a large marging based on the hate against FO3 or anything that differs from the glorified FO1 at least in my view


That said i enjoyed playing FO3, because it is a good game, it is even a decent Fallout game altrough it doesn't reach the originals in many ways. Story is very disappointing (dunno why Beth. has such a hard time getting a good writter), shame because of the huge potential an open world provides. Lack of stats or their minor importance in combat is another thing.
Other that Dogmeat the npcs you can chose to team with are there just for show, an obvious step backwards.
And there is the BoS and Super Mutants that don't make much sense, despite being the core of FO. lore
Where the game excels for me is the immersion and the sense for detail the world provides, not many games nowdays offer that. I find the open world design as a logical evolution of the series, as long the content isnt too repititive. Hence exploring is the strongest feature of the game that kinda overshadows combat. Cant really remember when i had so much fun and time invested just exploring the map, must be since the days of the first BG
A more action like gameplay that comes with the fps change isnt a problem for me , several battle sequences can be quiet spectacular visuals wise but i would wish for a more tactical aprouch dealing with the enemy since the player has to many advantages (vats beeing the most obvious one). Hence there aint much of planing when assaulting a heavy infested area (like Paradise Falls)

 

[coliphorbs]

I find the open world design as a logical evolution of the series, as long the content isnt too repititive.

Review this quote when you play Fallout 3.

 

[Blackfyre]

games on such a large scale tend to be by a degree repititive, even more if you invest more that 100+ gameplay hours needed to do it all. I aint bothered if thy use or recycle same objects like buildings, set items...to fill up the world . Fallout 2 did the same even if the world was much smaller in size.

Random encouters help here a little, Fallout 3 world is without a doubt very well done

 

[Crni Vuk]

not suprising that this thread got hijacked by people who like on a crusade try to convince the group of players that actually like the game that their enjoyment is misplaced. The main argumentation is as always comparison with the prequels and rejecting the idea of a different gaming concept by default.

Yes. We are evil, I know. How dare we to even try to compare Fallout 3 to Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 cause Bethesda claimed more then one time [trying] to make a sequel true to the first games. Shame on us ... yes seriously. Shame on us all here at NMA.

But without sarcasm this is No Mutants Allowed. A Fallout Fansite. Seriously did anyone expected anything else then a comparision between Fallout 3 and Fallout 1/2? To what should one compare Fallout 3 else ... Oblivion?

games on such a large scale tend to be by a degree repititive, even more if you invest more that 100+ gameplay hours needed to do it all. I aint bothered if thy use or recycle same objects like buildings, set items...to fill up the world . Fallout 2 did the same even if the world was much smaller in size.

Random encouters help here a little, Fallout 3 world is without a doubt very well done

One should make a difference here between the design/artistical deriction and repetetive gameplay or content.

There is no reason why houses should have the exact same level of descturction. And its not like there are that many metro stations in the game that you could not have thrown in a bit more variation here. People are usualy not complaining about the art which is without any doubt excelent in Fallout 3. But everything in Fallout 3 is very repetitive even the comunities. In both Fallout 1/2 you had repetitive scenerey, but the comunities for itself had some difference not only visualy but in the NPCs and their behaviour as well. You can not compare Vault City with the NCR, the Hub with Shady Sands, Junktown the BoS HQ and cant tell me there are no visible differences?

 

[k9wazere]

not everyone of us hate "casual gamers". Particularly since I count my self as one as well. I dont believe the "the casual gamer wants this/that" and hence games have to be butchered down.

Something I've come to appreciate is that there are two kinds of casual gamers (horrid generalisations follow).

1. The casual gamer who plays 30 mins a day, and doesn't mind having a single game last all year.

2. The casual gamer who plays 30 mins a day, and wants to complete every game in less than a week. This one has a lot of money to spend on games, and wants to play all the AAA titles as soon as possible.

I have nothing against #1. At times I fit into this category myself.

#2 are the real problem. They see games like movies. You pay your money, you want a couple hours shiny graphics and then you want it to end, so you can start something else.

 

[Public]

Fallout 2 did the same even if the world was much smaller in size.

Smaller?

Fallout 3's area is just a compressed Washington DC.

Fallout 1/2 were around the sizes of 2 states!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Fallout 2 did the same even if the world was much smaller in size.

Smaller?

Fallout 3's area is just a compressed Washington DC.

Fallout 1/2 were around the sizes of 2 states!

Yes but it had a lot less of actual "landmass" to explore and roughly only concentrated on interesting locations.

Though what some people dont get. Only cause you have this in Fallout 3 visualy doesnt mean that you have inherently more interesting [meaningfull] locations to begin with. Sandbox experience. One might like it others not. But it doesnt change the fact that you can in a game like Fallout 1/2 achieve more with a concept that only concentrates on the things that have a content in the sense of populated areas isntead of your x-y cave/building to explore directly (which Fallout 1/2 had as well though in some form, with randoom encounters and enemies).

Alltogether in the end it makes for a similar part where you have in Fallout 3 a small grid were you can explore everything but only a handfull of locations do really have a meaning (like Dunwich or the one or other base) or you have populated areas in Fallout 1/2 scatered across a few states and you dont have everything rendered and visualy visible cause it is a wasteland anyway and it would make no sense to waste your time "exploring" useless ruins anyway (as you do in Fallout 3)

 

[TamaNeko]

Alltogether in the end it makes for a similar part where you have in Fallout 3 a small grid were you can explore everything but only a handfull of locations do really have a meaning (like Dunwich or the one or other base) or you have populated areas in Fallout 1/2 scatered across a few states and you dont have everything rendered and visualy visible cause it is a wasteland anyway and it would make no sense to waste your time "exploring" useless ruins anyway (as you do in Fallout 3)

So you would rather just have areas that relate to the main quest in a Fallout game, that's it? Nothing else?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Alltogether in the end it makes for a similar part where you have in Fallout 3 a small grid were you can explore everything but only a handfull of locations do really have a meaning (like Dunwich or the one or other base) or you have populated areas in Fallout 1/2 scatered across a few states and you dont have everything rendered and visualy visible cause it is a wasteland anyway and it would make no sense to waste your time "exploring" useless ruins anyway (as you do in Fallout 3)

So you would rather just have areas that relate to the main quest in a Fallout game, that's it? Nothing else?

Thats not what I said, or meant at least.

As said Fallout 1/2 concentrated mainly on places of "interest" which was most of the time populated areas except of places like the Glow or Siera army depot but those were tied to "quests" in some form. Fallout 3 many times concentrates on "exploration" only its not without ar eason that you get experience points for finding locations on your map in Fallout 3 what ever if they have or do not have any meaningfull content isnide now ...

 

[Public]

Fallout 2 did the same even if the world was much smaller in size.

Smaller?

Fallout 3's area is just a compressed Washington DC.

Fallout 1/2 were around the sizes of 2 states!

Yes but it had a lot less of actual "landmass" to explore and roughly only concentrated on interesting locations.

But it still doesn't change the fact that the World Map was bigger in FO 1/2
And the quastion would be, "Why the hell I need to care about meaningless, and uninteresting wasteland/desert?"

For immersion?

 

[Corvin]

I liked the wasteland feel. I'm sorry you're unable to. I actually think that the uncanny valley would've kicked in had the graphics been 'better' in some ways. It was desolate and depressing. I enjoyed it.

 

[k9wazere]

I liked the wasteland feel. I'm sorry you're unable to. I actually think that the uncanny valley would've kicked in had the graphics been 'better' in some ways. It was desolate and depressing. I enjoyed it.

FO3 suffered from invisible walls and other immersion-breaking effects.

Did it bother anyone else that you couldn't climb over a pile of rubble?

That the whole of inner DC was only accessible by metro, because the buildings had conspired to collapse in such a way that they formed a perfect, unbroken rubble ring around the city?

No? No?

 

[Crni Vuk]

...
But it still doesn't change the fact that the World Map was bigger in FO 1/2
And the quastion would be, "Why the hell I need to care about meaningless, and uninteresting wasteland/desert?"

For immersion?

That is what I meant. Maybe I wasnt really clear about.

Fallouts real intention was a totally different one compared to a game like fallout 3 (which is closest to Oblivion in beeing a Sandbox game). There was no reason to immerse you in the such a way thus no reason to "model" every piece of the wasteland.

In the end though I think Fallout 1/2 offered much more in content as you have in Fallout 3 a lot of places that have actualy no meaning (and do not even make always sense ...) since they are only filled with generic enemies and loot.

 

[Public]

I liked the wasteland feel. I'm sorry you're unable to. I actually think that the uncanny valley would've kicked in had the graphics been 'better' in some ways. It was desolate and depressing. I enjoyed it.

I liked the wasteland feel too, and I thought it was good enough. But I was criticizing Bethesda's approach, to "make every piece of wasteland explorable". They were probably trying to make it more "immersive" crap. And by that, they ended up making a sandbox game area of a compressed DC, 5 minutes walk to everything.

Sorry Todd, but we still don't have such a technology to build a computer or some sort, to make it render randomly every piece of USA area by itself, with the same size as it is in real life. And then, people don't have money to buy every year a new computer

 

[BloodyPuppy]

It was really dissapointing how close everything was. I had to wander around D.C. a couple of weeks ago and it took me and my friends a couple of hours to cover a fairly small chunk of just the mall. If Bethesda wanted to make the game immersive and have a D.C. sized area I expect them to bust their ass to deliver.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Did it bother anyone else that you couldn't climb over a pile of rubble?

TBH, sometimes it annoyed me much more to get stuck between an invisible wall and an actual corner of some building. Some of the worst moments.

The whole inner DC area was a confusing dungeon that was really annoying and pointless.

 

[LockeCarnelia]

Here I am, a simple caveman, posting onto the boards where minds of infinite wit and jest will attempt to tear me limb from limb. Ah well. I'd best make my point brief and quick.

I understand both sides of the equation, as I played Fallout 1, 2, AND 3, and enjoyed all three of them, however, I don't understand why you must all be fighting over this.

Fallout 3, although certainly not an uber RPG Masterpiece that single-handedly will revolutionize RPGs for years to come, is, in my opinion, at least somewhat worthy of carrying the name.

Now BEFORE you all tear me apart by saying the past was way better, think about what the past had brought us before: The past brought us Fallout Tactics. The past brought us PoS. The past brought us disappointment after disappointment as we hoped that Interplay would get its act together and get a new Fallout pumped out that was worthy.

You needed Fallout 3, and it came, despite the fact that it looked like it would never come. But despite the fact that it took YEARS and YEARS getting here, it is cursed and spat upon. You are rejecting a game that might not have been created ever in the first place if not for chance, luck, and fate.

Contrary to what people believe on this forum, Fallout is a very much unremembered game by MANY people, it is you and the fansites that keep the legacy of these fine games alive. So when the new gamer that wants to try out Fallout comes onto this site, and looks at Fallout 3 discussion because he wants to get people who know their crap's opinions on the game? He's scared. He's scared of you guys who tear apart the very reason he came to this community and he doesn't want to be a part of it. You're killing off the chance to get influxes of people that will keep the legacy of the game alive, rather than stagnating in a dank slightly radioactive pit.

Fallout 3 was certainly no masterpiece, I recognize that, you recognize that. But calling it an abomination and a horrible example of any video game of all time is unfair to the game that brings fresh blood into your forums, and brings new ways of looking at things that might otherwise've been neglected.

Please, don't flame me for this. I call the shots as I see them, and I am trying not to make any condescendingness happen from this. I just want the flame wars to stop, and I want the community to solidify and band together, the old and the new, for a greater and purer Post-Apocalyptic RPG.

 

[kxre]

^
Calling NMA members elitist PC nerds wearing rose tinted nostalgia

glasses playing games with achaic TBC and ISO view isn't exactly

innocent either.

 

[LockeCarnelia]

I apologize for my remarks that might be considered flaming, I had no intention of insulting anyone, just simply giving my thoughts, and nothing more.

And I never criticized the Isometric Perspective. I personally like Iso views myself. And Turn-Based combat makes life a lot easier on me, I'm not a very good twitch gamer.

Ontop of that, I never even brought up any point about consoles or PC.

I just said that we're arguing over nothing, and we'd be a stronger community if we just got along.