Impressions thread for positive impressions
- Thread starter midshipman01
- Start date
midshipman01
First time out of the vault
Oh..but Mario also does not attempt to tell a deep story so it in no way fits into my argument. Gotta pay attention to those qualifiers. I don't write that stuff for nothing.Ausdoerrt said:
The lines of dialogue in F3 are rather short, as they ought to be. We humans don't like it very much when others rant for minutes at a time without letting us speak. This is the natural form of conversation. Also, you would rather watch an NPC speak for inordinate amounts of time? I wouldn't.
Stupid huh? I don't even know what that means in this context. They say what is relevant to their role in the game. If you think that's stupid...I dunno.
I don't find the dialogue to be unnatural either, but again, I'm not really sure how to interpret what is natural to you. For me, anything a character actually says with their own voice is instantly more natural than dropping a text box next to a still photo of them.
What is your bethesda employe registrationnumber?
Because the amount of time you put into your trolling is really amazing. You make things up until somebody clears your mistakes and after that you just move on to another topic and make excuses up. That is really professional trolling and if you don't take money for that you sure must have too much time.
Because the amount of time you put into your trolling is really amazing. You make things up until somebody clears your mistakes and after that you just move on to another topic and make excuses up. That is really professional trolling and if you don't take money for that you sure must have too much time.
DeadEye001
First time out of the vault
Roflcore said:
Wow, dude, way to set up a straw man post. He totally responded to your points and then you make this post. While blaming him for trolling. Unbelievable.
There's a strawman for you.
Wanting better dialogue doesn't mean that it has to be text, I'm not sure who exactly is asking for lots of text based dialogue though. They could easily expand upon the current writing to make it richer in the various places it's sort of "meh".
Easily done too, the Witcher had a good bit of text, accompanied by voice.
Hushed
First time out of the vault
Yet, there a huge difference from real-life, and a game. Games are a form of entertainment, life is rather boring. In real life I may not like chatty-cathys, but that is generally because I care little of their opinion. In the game I love people who talk, since it adds depth to the story. Life isn't a story that requires depth. I would honestly prefer a text-based game with no voice overs that provided depth, rather than a horribly written voiced-over game, yet Bethesda targets a large group of people so I understand their decision.midshipman01 said:
If we are going for naturalism, and realism, sure it may be more natural to hear their voice. Yet, when you add horribly written dialog, then it becomes more unnatural. Refer Here for examples of unnatural dialog.midshipman01 said:
DeadEye001
First time out of the vault
Roflcore said:
It is unbelievable. I'm not going to spoonfeed you exactly what you said and exactly how he replied to it; you're a big boy now and you've got your own eyes to do that with. But the fact is, he did respond to your points, and you immediately switched track to accuse him of being a Bethesda employee and that he was trolling. You know for a fact that you did that, and everyone who can read knows it too. Don't be a douche. If you want to have a debate with someone, don't pull this intellectually dishonest bullshit and start making some dumb ad hominem attacks just because you don't like his replies. You're better than that.
midshipman01
First time out of the vault
That's very true. FO3 dialogue was not perfect, probably far from it. What I'm trying to get at is that, despite it's faults, this real time story development system is essentially better than a text based system in every way. Fallout 1 and 2 relied on that tactic, so calling F03 a complete failure by comparison seems...odd, I guess.Ulysses said:
If F03 had been text based, I would've thought that was completely lame regardless of how well-written the passages were. It is just no longer necessary to develop a game story that way, and doing so in 2008 would be a slap in the face to consumers. It is possible to do more.
DeadEye001 said:
No, he did not. You finally got that? Because I already told you.
But if you like you sure can respond instead of him, I sure would like to know why you call something a "combat system" were you can absorb almost all the damage, without any armor, and can kill the most dangerous enemys with the weakest weapon in the game.
Just the be sure so that you finally understand it: He did not reply to the combat system thing, instead just moved on to dialog. Now he notices that he can't argue against the valid points the nma-members make. What will be the next topic? We will see.
midshipman01 said:
Except that the original designers of Fallout were trying to get it as close to a pen and paper RPG as possible. That was the whole point of the series. Bethesda completely missed the point on that. Deep discription of setting and turn based was 2 of their main things they wanted in the system. Bethesda is basically raping the system for its name and setting.
midshipman01
First time out of the vault
CStalin said:
We've already covered this. See, back in 1997, we didn't have these newfangled graphics that would allow hundred of NPC's to have realistic, fully animated conversations with us. I know...it's hard to imagine such dark times.
So, in an effort to create an engrossing story, Fallout and many other RPG's turned to text as a substitute. Sure, it wasn't as realistic as it could have been, but what could they tell ya? It's all there was. Basically, you don't know what the "intent" was...and even if the intent was to mimic text based RPG's, you don't know if those original RPG's would have been in text if there had been another option.
To convince me otherwise, you would have to note in what way a text box enhances immersion when compared to the new school, NPC delivered dialogue. In what way it brings you closer to realism. In what way in enhances your experience with the game. I say it does none of those things and was used primarily because there were no substitutes for it at the time.
midshipman01
First time out of the vault
Are you talking about me, or someone else in here? If it's me, just quote my offensive posts, make your rebuttals, and I'll get around to schooling you in due time.Roflcore said:
Whether or not you are, the beautiful thing about this is that I don't even have to bring the A game. I'm arguing against a text and turn based, isometrically viewed RPG from 1997. Somehow, you're supposed to show me why that is superior to Fallout 3 and my responses pretty much write themselves.
From my perspective, disagreeing with me is trolling because you're being irrationally negative.
Trithne
Still Mildly Glowing
Where is this idea coming from that text is outdated? Notice how all the conversations have subtitles? That's TEXT THERE. And frankly, I read way faster than the NPCs talk. So I skip through their speeches anyway, which makes them sound grotesque and kills that immersion you're ranting on about.
Immersion isn't about voice acting and shiny graphics and bloom ruining my one good eye. It's about atmosphere and internal logic. FO3 has a smidgen of atmosphere, in that every now and again I look at the wasteland and think "pretty", and absolutely no internal logic.
Immersion isn't about voice acting and shiny graphics and bloom ruining my one good eye. It's about atmosphere and internal logic. FO3 has a smidgen of atmosphere, in that every now and again I look at the wasteland and think "pretty", and absolutely no internal logic.
midshipman01 said:
Pretty much the same argument as for "TB" or "isometric is outdated" here. Sure it wouldn't look quite as good as on pixel shaders 3.0, but there was voice acting and animated dialogue even in FO1/2. I'm not sure I'm quite grasping why you see text as an obstacle to games that needs to be eliminated. Because "console kids" can't read??
Nobody said that FO has to be text-based (BTW FO1/2 wasn't a text-based game either). The complaint is that the text/dialogue/writing is poorly done. Not to mention that poor facial animations in no way enhance the experience. Your argument is fair if you compare good text dialogue to the same kind of voiced dialogue. However, if you compare good text to crappily voiced and animated 5-word sentences as in FO3, I'm all for good text. It's not really the medium, it's the quality.
Re: This section is disheartening
No.
You see, Fallout was made to emulate PnP RPGs, which utilised something called an 'imagination'.
Fallout 3 has replaced 'imagination' and used 'bad voice acting' in its place. Hence, while the player could initially use their imagination to enrich the storyline, such liberties are not possible in Fallout 3.
Mind you, this is not a bad thing for today's gamers that seem to want to be fed through a tube, but if you're looking for a deep, rich game or even (god forbid) a decent sequel, you're out of luck.
midshipman01 said:
No.
You see, Fallout was made to emulate PnP RPGs, which utilised something called an 'imagination'.
Fallout 3 has replaced 'imagination' and used 'bad voice acting' in its place. Hence, while the player could initially use their imagination to enrich the storyline, such liberties are not possible in Fallout 3.
Mind you, this is not a bad thing for today's gamers that seem to want to be fed through a tube, but if you're looking for a deep, rich game or even (god forbid) a decent sequel, you're out of luck.
midshipman01 said:
Yes we do.
Simple question: you seem to think of isometric-to-first person as some kind of linear scale of immersiveness. Would you be willing to accept the point that there is no such linear scale, and instead a pen and paper emulating RPG like Fallout simply sets out to bring a different experience than such RPGs as TES
aggerfall did around the same time?This isn't a sense of more or less, it is about how you wish to approach RPG design regardless of technical limitations. I'm not sure (without wanting to read back the entire thread) where the point came from that facial and body language animations are tied to this.
Also: guys, stop reporting almost every post midshipman01 is making. Midshipman01: most of your posts are fine but this whole "gosh you guys sure are dumb" thing is basically trolling, so stop it.
Just found an awesome comment about FOO being next-gen on another forum. Someone said: We're in 21st century so get used to the more modern design choices [in FO3]. Response: So, 21st century is the age of horrible interface, crappy graphics and linear storylines?