Impressions thread for positive impressions

[rcorporon]

No, but I had those moments in Fallout 1 and 2 to death. I could target someone from across the viewable playing screen and shoot them in the eyes with my gauss rifle WITH a 95% chance.

Does that render both points 'moot'? I think it does

And here comes the old: "Fallout 1 and 2 had issues, so these issues are acceptable in FO3" argument.

Sadly, just because turn based / hex combat isn't perfect, it doesn't excuse the horrible, shitfest that combat in FO3 is.

 

[MajorDanger]

so basically, nah, nah,nah,nah,nah.
thing is, tell me in what why fallout 3 is more tactical than fallout 2?
When player skill takes hold over main gameplay mechanics, the fault is not in the player being too powerful but the game allowing him to be so. Point being, Fallout 3 has a very clunky and has a very easy to abuse combat system. I can abuse vats by going in close range and using a combat shotgun, over and over again. Sometimes switching out of vats I can actually do more damage blindly shooting at a enemy, and yes, 2-4 seconds of slow motion deaths are so exciting when repeated every fucking time a death animation occurs in vats. Realtime does not equal=more tactical.

I'm sorry, this bit out of your post is dumb. You can abuse VATS by going in close range and using a combat shotgun? Um, newsflash, that's how the combat shotgun works. You get close, you shoot people with it. How is this in any way considered an 'abuse' of the VATS system? I was doing exactly the same thing in Doom 2, and that was nearly 15 years ago. Frankly, I'm not sure what people are talking about when they say the combat system in this game is 'clunky'.

I like playing sneaky characters. It turns out that in this game, I can sneak up on an encounter and snipe the hell out of bad guys, and I don't need to wait for them to all take turns meandering up to me if I can avoid it by actually shooting well and killing them all. When I think back to the original games, and how a combat with multiple bad guys used to make me just beg for some sort of speed-up option, the argument that FO3's combat is clunky just makes me laugh. Try hitting some bad guys in this game from long range with 0 small guns and a POS damaged hunting rifle. It's hard, like it should be. Amp up your small guns and fix your weapon so it does decent damage, you can plow through bad guys, like you should be able to. And when you finally grab Vengeance? Stick a fork in me, I'm done. That's awesome.

I prefer FO3's combat so very much. I prefer combats that are over in 10 frantic seconds rather than two boring minutes. I love being able to shoot some guy down without having to listen to *zzzzzt* *bleep* *bleep* *bang* *zzzzzt*. If that means I get to actually be better at, I don't know, sniping, because I'm naturally better at it, I'm all for that. Bitching about the combat in this game is a fools argument.

Allow me to try fitting in here.

OH GOD YOU'RE AN IDIOT THAT IS SO NAIVE.
FALLOUT 3 IS CLUNKY.
DID YOU EVEN PLAY FALLOUT 2?
YOU ARE TROLLING.
CAN YOU READ?
FALLOUT 3 SUCKS AND HAS NO REDEEMING VALUES WHAT SO EVER.
BOOKS AND CHESS! BOOKS AND CHESS! YOU POINT IS MOOT HAHA!

Mix that up and you pretty much have the last 3 pages of this thread and it's de-evolution into a bitter fanboy clusterfuck. Kinda like any thread saying anything remotely positive about this game on this board. It's just best to let these people sit around and stew over how much they hate this game.

 

[MajorDanger]

No, but I had those moments in Fallout 1 and 2 to death. I could target someone from across the viewable playing screen and shoot them in the eyes with my gauss rifle WITH a 95% chance.

Does that render both points 'moot'? I think it does

And here comes the old: "Fallout 1 and 2 had issues, so these issues are acceptable in FO3" argument.

Sadly, just because turn based / hex combat isn't perfect, it doesn't excuse the horrible, shitfest that combat in FO3 is.

I didn't say it did have issues. You were trying to complain it's too easy to kill shit in Fallout 3 using VATS, which is retarded considering no level cap in Fallout 2 made characters at level 21+ godlike.

So give me ONE tangible reason why Fallout 3's combat system is shit. One reason that doesn't fall back on nostalgia and that doesn't use a chess analogy.

GO.

 

[rcorporon]

Allow me to try fitting in here.

OH GOD YOU'RE AN IDIOT THAT IS SO NAIVE.
FALLOUT 3 IS CLUNKY.
DID YOU EVEN PLAY FALLOUT 2?
YOU ARE TROLLING.
CAN YOU READ?
FALLOUT 3 SUCKS AND HAS NO REDEEMING VALUES WHAT SO EVER.
BOOKS AND CHESS! BOOKS AND CHESS! YOU POINT IS MOOT HAHA!

Mix that up and you pretty much have the last 3 pages of this thread and it's de-evolution into a bitter fanboy clusterfuck. Kinda like any thread saying anything remotely positive about this game on this board. It's just best to let these people sit around and stew over how much they hate this game.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Why you would come to a site dedicated to the original Fallout games, and wonder why there is such a negative backlash against this new "Fallout" game we have been given, is beyond me.

Ok, give me ONE tangible reason why Fallout 3's combat system is shit. One reason that doesn't fall back on nostalgia and that doesn't use a chess analogy.

OK.

As a real time shooter, it simply sucks. The controls are clunky, aiming isn't governed by your skills. The enemies don't react to being shot (see the "Trench Warfare" promo video where super mutants just stand around and get mowed down).

As for VATS, it's basically an "I win" button. While playing FO3 I merely gather action points, enter vats, and blow the heads of every enemy in a 2k radius.

Want to play a real shooter? Try CoD4 or Bioshock.

Want to try a real RPG? Hell, play Morrowind. It's 15 times the RPG that Fo3 is.

 

[Geomancer]

No, but I had those moments in Fallout 1 and 2 to death. I could target someone from across the viewable playing screen and shoot them in the eyes with my gauss rifle WITH a 95% chance.

Does that render both points 'moot'? I think it does

And here comes the old: "Fallout 1 and 2 had issues, so these issues are acceptable in FO3" argument.

Sadly, just because turn based / hex combat isn't perfect, it doesn't excuse the horrible, shitfest that combat in FO3 is.

Ok, give me ONE tangible reason why Fallout 3's combat system is shit. One reason that doesn't fall back on nostalgia and that doesn't use a chess analogy.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the combat system doesn't belong in a Fallout game.

 

[kxre]

I am completely beneath your English P.hD. Do your not so common word choices make you feel like a genius

That's what seperates them from the people over at the Gamefaq board.

Its interesting I did not buy Fallout 3 for all the positive thing you have mentioned TC. Huge game world? so what, I've explored 3/4 of the map and are bored to sleep. Immersive? now this I can never understand. Does every western gamer likes to feel like they're inside the game for it to be considered a good game?

People always assume NMA wanted a rehash of fallout 1&2, thats not true. fp view is fine with me as long as its done right.

You are right that the dialogue in fallout 3 is realistic, but that is because the game is being marketed toward young gamer whose attention span and vocabulary is limited. To old gamer, the dialogue choice is rather juvenile.

Well after the release of Fallout 3, it certainly looks like NMA is being invaded by new generation fallout fan.

 

[MajorDanger]

Allow me to try fitting in here.

OH GOD YOU'RE AN IDIOT THAT IS SO NAIVE.
FALLOUT 3 IS CLUNKY.
DID YOU EVEN PLAY FALLOUT 2?
YOU ARE TROLLING.
CAN YOU READ?
FALLOUT 3 SUCKS AND HAS NO REDEEMING VALUES WHAT SO EVER.
BOOKS AND CHESS! BOOKS AND CHESS! YOU POINT IS MOOT HAHA!

Mix that up and you pretty much have the last 3 pages of this thread and it's de-evolution into a bitter fanboy clusterfuck. Kinda like any thread saying anything remotely positive about this game on this board. It's just best to let these people sit around and stew over how much they hate this game.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Why you would come to a site dedicated to the original Fallout games, and wonder why there is such a negative backlash against this new "Fallout" game we have been given, is beyond me.

Ok, give me ONE tangible reason why Fallout 3's combat system is shit. One reason that doesn't fall back on nostalgia and that doesn't use a chess analogy.

OK.

As a real time shooter, it simply sucks. The controls are clunky, aiming isn't governed by your skills. The enemies don't react to being shot (see the "Trench Warfare" promo video where super mutants just stand around and get mowed down).

As for VATS, it's basically an "I win" button. While playing FO3 I merely gather action points, enter vats, and blow the heads of every enemy in a 2k radius.

Want to play a real shooter? Try CoD4 or Bioshock.

Want to try a real RPG? Hell, play Morrowind. It's 15 times the RPG that Fo3 is.

Ahh, the bitter stench of defeat.

Let me first retort that I re-registered here before you, so scrubs can't tell me to leave.

Why would anyone go to a site dedicated to FALLOUT games and not expect nothing but hate? Maybe because we actually got another fallout game after it's original company went bankrupt. It only took what, 10 years for a new fallout game?

You take a gift like this and shit all over it because it isn't 3rd person or turn based and doesn't measure up to the unrealistic and draconian standards you went into it with. You didn't honestly expect a game made in 2008 to be the same as, or even remotely similar to a game made in 1998, did you? If so then all of you have yourselves to blame because you went into this with a mind closed tighter than a (witty similie).

You must not play many 'real time shooters'. How are the controls 'clunky?" Do you have an infatuation with buzz words? i haven't even played the computer fallout 3, so I can imagine how much better being able to aim a well repaired hunting rifle with a mouse must be. Aim and click, aim and click. How does that differ from any of the other 'real' FPS's you referred me to. It doesn't.

Vats being an 'i win' button? Turn up the difficulty if you're finding the game too easy. I honestly didn't start to get bored with how easy shit was until I got a plasma rifle at level 17 with 100 in Energy weapons and the Commando and Sniper perks, both which increase your VATS accuracy significantly. The game was over for me anyway.

I don't mean to come off as a dickhead but I'm starting to get irritated with this shared hive-mind that the current combat system doesn't belong here. You couldn't possibly build a game on the Oblivion engine and still make it purely turn based, and you couldn't realistically market and sell a true to form turn based game in this day and age.

So either everyone shuts the fuck up about these irrelevant gripes that the game doesn't play like the first two and tries it, or continue to hate it but still play it with dozens of mods in a vain attempt to try and make it like Fallout 1 and 2. Part of the reason I bought it for the XBox.

Its interesting I did not buy Fallout 3 for all the positive thing you have mentioned TC. Huge game world? so what, I've explored 3/4 of the map and are bored to sleep. Immersive? now this I can never understand. Does every western gamer likes to feel like they're inside the game for it to be considered a good game?

Well, it's certainly superior to the alternative J-Pop bullshit where all the androgynous 14 year old eunuchs run around with swords the size of cars and crazy stupid hair.

Believe it or not game developers are now striving for an immersive experience that will make the player become emotionally attached to the characters and even cry!

Please please please go play Thief, then come back and try to look at your immersion comment with a straight face.

 

[DeadEye001]

See, I don't know how people bag on the dialogue so comprehensively. There were some moments where I was very much speed-reading the dialogue from some characters because it was boring. But there were quite a few conversations I genuinely enjoyed. I understand this is an opinion based viewpoint, but I would not say that the dialogue in this game was unequivocally terrible. A lot of people on this board are stating this. I do not agree at all. I see weak moments in the dialogue and I see genuine moments of pure awesome, and I think either people are trying to blow through the game without actually reading anything, or that they've made up their mind before the installation process was completed. The one niggling thing for me is that there was no 'dumb' speech, and ultimately for me that is a novelty for repeated playthroughs, not a BREAK DVD IN HALF RAGEQUIT thing.

 

[midshipman01]

Allow me to try fitting in here.

OH GOD YOU'RE AN IDIOT THAT IS SO NAIVE.
FALLOUT 3 IS CLUNKY.
DID YOU EVEN PLAY FALLOUT 2?
YOU ARE TROLLING.
CAN YOU READ?
FALLOUT 3 SUCKS AND HAS NO REDEEMING VALUES WHAT SO EVER.
BOOKS AND CHESS! BOOKS AND CHESS! YOU POINT IS MOOT HAHA!

Mix that up and you pretty much have the last 3 pages of this thread and it's de-evolution into a bitter fanboy clusterfuck. Kinda like any thread saying anything remotely positive about this game on this board. It's just best to let these people sit around and stew over how much they hate this game.

You're right on the money. The really frustrating bit is that I don't think these people really hate this game. I think they desperately want to hate this game.

When you're snubbing your nose at things like "large game world" and at the same time, citing that random bottles don't break when you drop them...that's a real turning point. People like this will never be impressed by anything, relagating themselves only to outdated, subpar experiences for no other reason than nostalgia.

 

[Ulysses]

Shame a lot of the "outdated, subpar" games are more fun than the crop of supposedly top flight games now. Anyway, overreact much about the other side of the fence much ? Sheesh

 

[rcorporon]

Why would anyone go to a site dedicated to FALLOUT games and not expect nothing but hate? Maybe because we actually got another fallout game after it's original company went bankrupt. It only took what, 10 years for a new fallout game?

Actually, we got Fallout: Tactics and Fallout: BoS, and even though they were "new" fallout games, I wouldn't call them "gifts."

You take a gift like this and shit all over it because it isn't 3rd person or turn based and doesn't measure up to the unrealistic and draconian standards you went into it with. You didn't honestly expect a game made in 2008 to be the same as, or even remotely similar to a game made in 1998, did you? If so then all of you have yourselves to blame because you went into this with a mind closed tighter than a (witty similie).

"Gift like this?" If you call a mediocre, watered down shooter/rpg hybrid clusterfuck like FO3 a "gift" then I'm glad I'm not on your Xmas list.

I didn't want a re-hashed FO1 or 2 (another fallback of the Beth apologists). I wanted a decent "Fallout" game. Something in the vein of Fallout 1 or 2, and deserving of the title "Fallout 3." What I got was Oblivion 2.5: Hats and Guns.

You must not play many 'real time shooters'. How are the controls 'clunky?" Do you have an infatuation with buzz words? i haven't even played the computer fallout 3, so I can imagine how much better being able to aim a well repaired hunting rifle with a mouse must be. Aim and click, aim and click. How does that differ from any of the other 'real' FPS's you referred me to. It doesn't.

Since when is "clunky" a buzzword? How's this: FO3's aiming, on the PS3, feels as accurate as riding a cow with 3 legs.

If you don't notice a difference in feel between CoD 4 and FO3, it's you sir who don't play enough shooters.

Vats being an 'i win' button? Turn up the difficulty if you're finding the game too easy. I honestly didn't start to get bored with how easy shit was until I got a plasma rifle at level 17 with 100 in Energy weapons and the Commando and Sniper perks, both which increase your VATS accuracy significantly. The game was over for me anyway.

I'm playing on "Hard."

I don't mean to come off as a dickhead but I'm starting to get irritated with this shared hive-mind that the current combat system doesn't belong here. You couldn't possibly build a game on the Oblivion engine and still make it purely turn based, and you couldn't realistically market and sell a true to form turn based game in this day and age.

Here's a thought: don't build a Fallout game on the Oblivion Engine. Stop being lazy bitches and design something from the ground up for once.

As for not being able to sell turn based games, here you go:

Advance Wars (and it's sequels)
Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions
Jeanne D'Arc
Romance of the Three Kingdoms (whatever # they're up to now)

As for "evolving" I'm willing to bet Starcraft II and Diablo III will outsell FO3, and they'll still be isometric, and true to their original games, even in this day and age.

So either everyone shuts the fuck up about these irrelevant gripes that the game doesn't play like the first two and tries it, or continue to hate it but still play it with dozens of mods in a vain attempt to try and make it like Fallout 1 and 2. Part of the reason I bought it for the XBox.

So it's okay to praise a game, but not to point out it's glaring faults?

You're right on the money. The really frustrating bit is that I don't think these people really hate this game. I think they desperately want to hate this game.

When you're snubbing your nose at things like "large game world" and at the same time, citing that random bottles don't break when you drop them...that's a real turning point. People like this will never be impressed by anything, relagating themselves only to outdated, subpar experiences for no other reason than nostalgia.

I don't hate the game. I just think it's mediocre, and falls into many of the same traps that Oblivion fell in. Shitty combat, terrible dialogue, no real sense of consequence, horrid animations, brutal story, and atrocious AI.

As for "regulating myself to outdated games," that's just trolling.

 

[midshipman01]

Why you would come to a site dedicated to the original Fallout games, and wonder why there is such a negative backlash against this new "Fallout" game we have been given, is beyond me.

Because as fans, you should be looking forward to the next installment. Why you would sit in your little corner and cry instead of trying to enjoy it is beyond me.

OK.

As a real time shooter, it simply sucks. The controls are clunky, aiming isn't governed by your skills. The enemies don't react to being shot (see the "Trench Warfare" promo video where super mutants just stand around and get mowed down).

This is simply not true. At very least, it is no more true for Fallout 3 than it has been for any previous Fallout. EVERYTHING about Fallout 3's combat is more advanced. The clunkier you think it is, the clunkier F1 and 2 must have been by comparison (and it so happens nothing is clunkier than turn based combat).

As for VATS, it's basically an "I win" button. While playing FO3 I merely gather action points, enter vats, and blow the heads of every enemy in a 2k radius.

No different than most turn based battles you'll face in any game that includes them. It's the biggest downfall of the system, that wins are based on leveled skills and there is very little to no chance that the underdog can compete . Unlike F03 where you can be attacked in real time...

Want to play a real shooter? Try CoD4 or Bioshock.

You're exactly right. I wouldn't buy Fallout 3 for a great FPS experience and I doubt Bethesda would ask you to. Combat simply augments the experience in Fallout and the sparse number of available baddies makes that obvious. This is a silly argument.

Want to try a real RPG? Hell, play Morrowind. It's 15 times the RPG that Fo3 is.

Unsubstantiated nothingness. Why is that grindfest better?

 

[MajorDanger]

Here's a thought: don't build a Fallout game on the Oblivion Engine. Stop being lazy bitches and design something from the ground up for once.

Well you seem like a sharp, stand up guy. Get on it, and I'll buy two copies. What engine would you propose Fallout 4 be built on? Or would you rather wait another 10 years and only be tossed truly re-hashed filler games like Fallout: Tactics Ultimate Confrontations II? Seriously, those games were like all the Street Fighter II variants.

There isn't anything wrong with the Oblivion *engine*, the game just needed to be more refined is all.

And hey, I liked Morrowind You want immersive text driven gaming experience? Morrowind has it in all it's teeny-weenie small text eye-strain-o glory.

 

[DeadEye001]

Here's a thought: don't build a Fallout game on the Oblivion Engine. Stop being lazy bitches and design something from the ground up for once.

As for not being able to sell turn based games, here you go:

Advance Wars (and it's sequels)
Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions
Jeanne D'Arc
Romance of the Three Kingdoms (whatever # they're up to now)

As for "evolving" I'm willing to bet Starcraft II and Diablo III will outsell FO3, and they'll still be isometric, and true to their original games, even in this day and age.

It's not a matter of laziness when teams use adapted engines. It's a matter of cost. It costs more to develop an engine from the ground up, and it is cost-prohibitive nowadays. Fallout has never been the kind of property that sells by the truckload. The original two weren't enormous hits. I can completely understand why a developer would choose to use an existing engine and adapt it for Fallout 3. This is not unusual in today's game production environment.

I am also willing to bet Starcraft II and Diablo III will outsell FO3. I am also willing to point out that both games' prequels were best-sellers many times over, and outsold Fallout 1+2 by an enormous margin. I mean, we're not even talking in the same ballpark here. To equate a property like FO with two of the most successful gaming properties in the world is not a fair comparison for Fallout. Diablo III and Starcraft II will outsell pretty much everything. Fallout 3 will never compete with those numbers, because Fallout as a property has never had that fanbase.

 

[midshipman01]

I don't hate the game. I just think it's mediocre, and falls into many of the same traps that Oblivion fell in. Shitty combat, terrible dialogue, no real sense of consequence, horrid animations, brutal story, and atrocious AI.

As for "regulating myself to outdated games," that's just trolling.

I didn't point to you. It should only be offensive if you place yourself in that category. I also never said that this consequence was relegated to the Fallout world. Go to any decent music store and you'll hear snobs waxing poetic about music that only appeals to them because it was "good" when standards were lower. That's a sad way to view your own hobby.

If you think the game is mediocre, that's fine. I can't make you like the game nor do I care if you do. What I would like to see however, is a little restraint shown with those adjectives you and your fellows throw around. You think this is atrocious, horrid, and shitty? Either you've not played very many games or you're going out of your way not to enjoy Fallout 3.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

I see why the OP has disappeared, because there isn't any reasoning with any of you. You all still want long, text-based dialouge options and just can't settle for voice acting because of your head-up-your-ass nostalgia. If you want text-based bullshit to stimulate your huge genius minds then i suggest you find and pick a game at www.themudconnection.com. The rest of us mouth-breathers will take Fallout 3.

I don't see why voice acting automatically means bad and short dialogue. If Beth was as great as so many people claim it is, they could do both at the same time. I mean look at Witcher. And they voiced it in 10 languages, too!

"Text is outdated" argument, my ass. Read a f**king book.

Unsubstantiated nothingness. Why is that grindfest better?

Are you trying to say that FOO is NOT a grindfest??

Meanwhile, on my Xbox version, I've already played through half the game as an asshole this time and I've only advanced the plot far enough to wear power armor. So far I've found TONS of points of interest and found a little over half of the bobbleheads.

My problem is that FOO's "points of interest" are generally not interesting. It's usually more grinding, a little loot. And the bobbleheads are a ridiculous idea. Feels like I'm playing an arcade game.

 

[Roflcore]

I didn't say it did have issues. You were trying to complain it's too easy to kill shit in Fallout 3 using VATS, which is retarded considering no level cap in Fallout 2 made characters at level 21+ godlike.

Yeah and in Fallout 3 you are godlike at level 1. Great improvement, really!

So give me ONE tangible reason why Fallout 3's combat system is shit.

Because you can kill almost any, if not every, enemy with a 10mm pistole and can survive several rockets without any sort of protection. This is not a combat system, its a godlike trainer.

So please, how about stop trolling and just admit that the "combat system" is fucked up beyond repair.

Oh and yes, the real time system is chunky. Not even I with a lot of shooter experience are able to hit the flying bees, because the system is so shitty.

 

[midshipman01]

"Text is outdated" argument, my ass. Read a f**king book.

In a medium defined by interactive images, yes, text is outdated and it has been since the beginning. It was just unfortunate for early developers that the technology did not exist to support a deep story without text. That is no longer the case and any return to that format evidences a complete lack of ambition on the developer's part. Could anything be less innovative than simply dropping text boxes into gameplay? I think not.

If you'd like a text based adventure, they do make those. Really good ones too, millions of them. I believe you referred to them as "books".

 

[Ausdoerrt]

^ That is a load of BS, really. By that argument, Mario for NES is a pinnacle of games' development. It has nearly no text!

Also, it still does not explain why the lines that were chosen to be included in the dialogue system, however "outdated", have to be so short, stupid and unnatural. Because they're voiced? No, maybe because Beth was too lazy to voice longer lines??

 

[ScottXeno]

^ That is a load of BS, really. By that argument, Mario for NES is a pinnacle of games' development. It has nearly no text!

Also, it still does not explain why the lines that were chosen to be included in the dialogue system, however "outdated", have to be so short, stupid and unnatural. Because they're voiced? No, maybe because Beth was too lazy to voice longer lines??

Lack of ability to come up with more believable dialogue. They hired George Lucas to write all their dialogue, of course!