Impressions thread for positive impressions

[CStalin]

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.

So by your standards we shouldnt have novels anymore because now we have movies. Or hey why have TV when we have interactive games . They still make Pen and Paper RPGs. Also the orginal designers and original design documents have all said on multiple occasions that it was to emulate a pen and paper RPG as close as possible. Doom was already out for years by the time Fallout came out. Their was also Old real time RPGs like Story of Ys. They didnt make it real time or FPS because no where was it their intent to do that.

 

[UniversalWolf]

If I were developing a brand new computer game designed to simulate playing GURPS (or any other tabletop RPG) with miniatures, first-person perspective would be my last choice. Yes, even though the technology is available - as it was in 1997.

 

[Elandarex]

I guess I'm not viewing the same board as you. Over here, it looks like a whiny fanboy circle jerk with one or two open-minded individuals poking their head in from time to time.

You seem to claim open-mindedness on your side, for your argument, yet you, above everyone else, are the most close-minded person here. You have repeatedly stated that text-only dialog systems and well, basically anything that existed before the new millennium is completely obsolete and of no use to game developers for the rest of eternity. I'm exaggerating, I know, but the point still stands: this is close-minded thinking.

I really haven't seen any of the Fallout 3 "malcontents" saying that text-only is universally better than voiced dialog. Well, except perhaps in the sense that writing things down before calling in an actor to (hopefully) bring them to life is generally preferable. You're putting words in their mouths, er, keyboards. The issue here is that Fallout 3 lacks effective writing, a none too unusual failing in most games. Top that with lackluster VA performances (I felt that everyone, including Liam Neeson, were not so much bad as bland, with the exception of President Eden. Though Three Dog did at least have some emotion even if it wasn't terribly convincing) and what you get is a dismal experience from a narrative standpoint.

Fallout 1/2 don't have the best writing in the history of ever, omigod. They have solid, character-centric writing with uniquely performed voiced encounters. The writing isn't there just because it's a convention of the genre, it's there because it represents the very foundation of what makes these games so important, so S.P.E.C.I.A.L. Fallout 3 however, recognizes the former as its focus. I don't hate Fallout 3, not by a long shot. I just enjoy discussing where it went wrong, which is what I thought most people here enjoyed doing as well. It does people no good to say everything they do is super great and amazing. People benefit from constructive criticism/feedback. The question is, why do you feel so compelled to vindicate this game before all of those who hate it (pro tip: chances are they don't)?

 

[Buxbaum666]

(so yes, I have played through Fallout 2 many times, you jerk)

The game was over the second you returned with the GECK

Does not compute.

this real time story development system is essentially better than a text based system in every way.
(...)
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.

That just shows that Fallout 3 targets a different audience than Fallout 1 and 2.

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.

So Postal2, a first person shooter from 2003 must be superior to, say, Planescape: Torment, an isometric CRPG from 1999. Or is it? I don't think so. So please explain to me how old games are automatically inferior to new games. I don't think you can do that.

 

[rcorporon]

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.

So back in 1996 when I was playing Quaek, or back in 1998 when I was playing Half-Life with 3d graphics and animated NPC's, I was dreaming?

The visual look of Fallout was a design decision, not a technology one.

 

[Sander]

And strike two and three for MajorDanger for the 3 dozen offenses throughout this thread.
Bye now, if you want to discuss things do it normally and politely without resorting to trolling half the forum.

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.

Strike for trolling, yourself.

As for the argument about combat systems. No one is going to tell you which one you have to find more fun, because that's entirely subjective. I can't even begin to understand why people are trying to convince each other that one combat system is inherently more fun.

What we can argue, though, is that a turn-based combat system is essential to Fallout's core design. Throughout the development of the game and afterward the developers of Fallout have consistently said that Fallout was made as an emulation of P&P gameplay. Turn-based combat is an essential part of that experience, as it provides an abstraction and allows for much more strategic options (no, Fallout didn't take full advantage of this, which is why it wouldn't be a problem if an improved turn-based system was used a la Jagged Alliance 2).
You can hate that part of Fallout and that's good for you, but to claim that real-time combat makes Fallout 3 more of a Fallout game, or that it is an improvement from the point of view of Fallout's core design is a provable fallacy.

Besides that, the argument that says that they would've changed the game if they had the technology is another fallacy, since first-person, real-time RPGs already existed at that point in time and it was certainly possible for them to make Fallout a first-person, real-time RPG. But Fallout was a throwback to classical RPGs, it was seen at the time as reviving a dying genre (!). The viewpoint and combat system were very conscious design decisions, not forced on them by technological limitations.

Also, this thread is really close to going to the vats if people don't cut out all the ad hominems and strawmen.

 

[ZICKBONE]

with voice acting you need 2 things
good writing and convincing voice acting
fo3 has thin writing and extremely bad voice acting
and the fact that they have 6 voice actors doing 1000s of characters voices without even trying to sound like more then 6 chars makes it seam even dumber then it is, I wouldn't mind just text when talking to traders/settlers and other non important chars so that the bad voice acting wouldn't be everywhere and so that the use of a very limited numbers of voices wouldn't be so obvious.

 

[TheFlyingBuddha]

with voice acting you need 2 things
good writing and convincing voice acting
fo3 has thin writing and extremely bad voice acting
and the fact that they have 6 voice actors doing 1000s of characters voices without even trying to sound like more then 6 chars makes it seam even dumber then it is, I wouldn't mind just text when talking to traders/settlers and other non important chars so that the bad voice acting wouldn't be everywhere and so that the use of a very limited numbers of voices wouldn't be so obvious.

This complaint keeps getting thrown out there, and personally it just blatantly disregards the fact that one game is fully voiced and another is not. People always say "I wouldn't mind just text" but let's face it, you would. If FO3 had been released as it is, but without fully voiced dialog, people would be throwing plenty of stones about that. You wouldn't like staring a person in the face and not hearing any sound when their lips move. The perspective shift (a debate that can be had elsewhere) makes voiced dialog more important across the board.

The repeated criticism of hearing the same voice talent is also a bit silly. I remember that between playing Baldur's Gate and the FO games I heard the actor who voiced the master voice MANY characters (Gizmo, the Master, Gorion, Minsc, and more), and I knew it was him every time. Some of the voice actors in FO3 aren't as good at shifting their voice and maybe the direction wasn't what it could have been, I will grant that, but the simple fact is the voice acting talent isn't that bad, no worse than other blockbuster sandbox games like GTA, where tons of ancillary characters are voiced by a limited number of people.

This doesn't imply that it can't be better, but it's not as terrible as most people are making it out to be. The writing, I will admit, is more hit and miss, and yes, one or two additional general voice actors would have been a nice addition, but I think most of the voice acting talent itself is fairly good. You just have to keep in mind there's a difference between "terrible" and "room for improvement" or even "*needs* improvement."

EDIT: I notice the above poster is from Sweden, and it made me think that obviously my comments pertain to the English version of the game. Not sure how the other versions shape up in this respect.

 

[Public]

with voice acting you need 2 things
good writing and convincing voice acting
fo3 has thin writing and extremely bad voice acting

I think the voice acting is bad because of this thin writing too, and that Beth probably doesn't pay much attantion the voice actors and the writing (for example, they used most of the voice actors from TES series)

 

[the lone deathclaw]

Yet again I got to this topic late and am at work so i cannot just read it all but in response to the OP you have said quite possibly one of the dumbest most fitting of idiocracy statements I have ever heard. You claimed that live action is more immersive than text. I challenge you to find a single movie that was better than it's book version (books based on screenplays do not count, i mean books that were adapted to be made into a movie) Movies cannot top what the mind can imagine be they for time concerns or the ability to represent it. This analogy I am making is quite apt, by saying that if it was built with a deeper story and more dialog it would never be as good as me seeing slow motion a super mutant head getting blown off. In fact i'd argue graphics can at times kill off the ambiance, one of my most hated things in my replays through of fallout 1 and 2, i'm at like 40 now or something hehe is the critical death shots, and being the king of eye shots I tend to get these a lot and they expanded it in Fallout 3. I'm not saying Fallout 3 should have been text based granted games are much more visual now. However by saying some things have infinitly worse stories is not the case, but my original point is read ugh i cannot believe i'm saying this but i'm trying to meet you half way. Even a piece of drivel like the Da Vinci Code was like 10 times better in book form, i chose a very easy read so comparisons would be easier, I was gonna say Les Mesirebles.

 

[Sander]

A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey (although I loathe the movie), Fight Club, Conan: The Barbarian and The Shining are just a few examples of movies that are arguably better than the books they were based on.

 

[the lone deathclaw]

Well i'm going to have to disagree greatly on the first 2 and the others I cannot account for, i have yet to meet someone who enjoyed the A Space Odessey series of books but they felt 2001 was the best and I really like the movie but i'd say it would not give you a better experience but it succeeds due to kubrik's genusis, and as for a clockwork orange they end the movie before the final chapter so it gives you a very jaded perspective of the book so again I'd say it fails in the original intent of the book. My point was basically that movies almost by definition cannot live up to the book because prose provides for many more nuances and you can re-read the lines while movies blur by at a much faster pace. Again from people I have met have also enjoyed the book Fight Club more, I'll give you the Shining and why not i'll give you Conan even though I cannot say I have any knowledge of the book. I will stand by my statement that trying to even make a movie compete with the original book is a machistic act that only gets harder the more known it is. And that is part of the thing with Fallout 3 it the first 2 were legendary, but for those of you who say were just haters we try.. we really do try to like this game and many of us would say on it's own it's a fine game but it does not hold up to the lineage well on the whole. Maybe i'm just a grisled old school gamer but i figured that since they would not use as much text in this one they would have many different character models but all seems to look very similiar ie the intelligent ghouls.

 

[Beelzebud]

What is disheartening is that Fallout 3 is not nearly as good of a game as it could be, considering the budget Bethesda surely spent on it.

I'll bet the advertising budget alone was more than Interplay had to spend on either Fallout game, and yet we're left with an action game with very light RPG mechanics. The SPECIAL system is there for display purposes only.

Fallout 3 feels like a game that had the landscape, vaults, buildings and towns built and left empty, and then a few people went through adding completely dettatched side-quests, vault inhabitants, and towns. There was literally no planning for pacing, character progression, or how to use the entire setting for the story arc.

If I had two words to sum up Fallout 3 it would be these two: Wasted Potential

They had the potential to make a truly classic RPG, and yet they chose to just do what was totally safe.

I understand that some people love Morrowind and Oblivion. I get it. Those aren't my cup of tea, but I know a few people that really like those games. Here is my question for those of you who don't seem to get it, when it comes to Fallout fans: How would you feel if somoene releaesd The Elder Scrolls V, and it was an isometric, turn-based game, that really focused on emulating a table top RPG experience, where everything was relying on hard numbers for every system? I'll bet you wouldn't like it at all.

And that is the problem with Fallout 3.

It looks like it's in the Fallout world, but it does not play like a Fallout 3 should at all. Period. They took the soul out of the game.

Diablo games were always hardcore action games. They were not RPG games, and they really wouldn't totally *need* a top-down camera view. The Diablo games have a reputation for not being true RPG games at all. They're just fun hack-and-slash games. So why wouldn't Blizzard move Diablo in to a first person persepective? It's clearly a game that is suited to fast action and twitchy reflexes. The reason they don't do that is becaues then it wouldn't be a Diablo game! When you see a screenshot of Diablo 3, you can tell you're looking at a Diablo game instantly. Even though it's using a 3D engine, it still LOOKS just like a Diablo game. With Fallout 3 the same can not be said. It doesn't resemble a Fallout game at all other than the theme.

Don't expect everyone who loved Fallout 1 and 2 to accept the fact that Bethesda has turned thier backs on what made the Fallout games what they were.

 

[popej]

Still don't understand why people slag off the first person perspective, it's not the problem at all. The problem with Fallout 3 is that it isn't as good as the first two games (yes I am deliberately stating the obvious).

I bet you a million pounds that Black Isle could make a ball bustingly brilliant Fallout title in the first person if they had Bethesda's funding.

In fact the potential is there with Bethesda's engine, sadly the talent isn't.

 

[John-Star]

my first post here..

ive played fallout 3 and after 2-3 days of playing i got to the point of wth did they do to fallout?
this isnt the game i love and play,call me old but i prefer the old gameplay tbh.
hell even pong had more story than F3 and i know i played it when it came out in the arcades......(yes im old),if i wanted to play a shooter i would go for COD or Farcry,but Fallout big dissapointment for me.
when playing the original fallout it has the feeling you are playing a game that had the ideas and love of its creators in it.
F3 is a game with a body but lacking a soul and i play games that has atleast some soul,mindless shooting creatures and walking in the same landscape i saw in morrowwind ,isnt the game i love.
i know that most games these days are RT and Shooters because the young kids love those but for me it is a shame that the big companys forget that there are people that love old type gaming style like i do,dont get me wrong i like most of the games hell i even play eve-online for 4 years now but i still play the old games on my older pc's just because they are original and the creators didnt in some cases had huge moneygrabing profit in their minds.

pardon my english im dutch and learned most of my english from tv and movies.

Fallout 2 is in my opinion 1 of the greatest games ive ever played and i played over 1000 of different games.

 

[TheRatKing]

People always say "I wouldn't mind just text" but let's face it, you would. If FO3 had been released as it is, but without fully voiced dialog, people would be throwing plenty of stones about that

Um I have actually heard people say they turn the voice volume down to zero when they play Fallout 3.

Also, Bethesda could have done what the original Fallout's did and simply show the scene with an isometric camera, without a talking head. Oh wait no that would spoil the immersion. Scrap ffp and go iso, everything is solved (almost).

 

[popej]

Nah, I honestly think some of you are blaming Fo3's problems on the first person perspective because you don't know what the real problem is. Truth is, its a shallow experience but I don't believe FPS RPG's are shallow by default. Was Morrowind shallow and uninspired?

 

[Nullifidian]

I gotta say, I was shocked when I read all the posts here from people hating on Fallout 3.

I love it. I think it's an unbelievably amazing game.

I played Fallout 1 and 2 extensively. I think I've beaten at least a dozen times. Probably more. I play Fallout 1 and 2 like I played Master of Orion 2 and Alpha Centauri; by that I mean, I keep them permanently installed on every system I've owned for the past 10 years (obviously not ALL of them initially since not all were out in 1998 IIRC, and before 2001 I didn't have a machine that could fit them all at the same time comfortably).


There are some things I miss about 1 and 2. Item descriptions for one. I also miss the non-linearity of the main quest. I like that the ending for 1 and 2 was influenced by SIDE QUESTS not some arbitrary decision you make at the end of the game + karma.

I miss the reputation system.

I miss those little mini-achievements you could get in the game that influenced how people reacted to you.

I miss damage types greatly as well as damage thresholds.


What do I not miss? I don't miss waiting 10 years for my turn to go when attacking a crime family in new Reno. I love the realtime combat, and I love VATS. Shot placement needs to have a greater effect though; for example, a crippled arm should mean you can't use a 2 handed weapon worth a dang. Crippled leg should mean slow limp. Crippled both legs should mean you fall down and can't get up. I've like groin shots and eye shots too. But I love the realtime combat and I love VATS nonetheless.

I don't miss the crap graphics. Sure they were awesome when it first came out. But the characters are really tiny onscreen, and it can be hard identifying with a character who is so small you can't even tell if they HAVE a face, let alone what kind of expressions, etc they have.


What do I especially like?

As mentioned, the combat and graphics are great.

I like the physics. I like the DC wasteland. Yes, I like it and I don't give a flying crap that it's "not realistic". It's fun. I LOVE the hacking minigame. The lock picking is kind of meh. It would be better if there were some good audio cues for when you get near a sweet spot. I like the raiders and like the fact that they all appear to be psychotic cannibals. I wish you could join them though if you're evil. I love exploring. I don't care that most of the wasteland has nothing of worth other than some ammo or food. I just like the fact that they made a point of including all these little details whether or not it has any effect on gameplay.

The radio is fantastic. The music itself is great on the radio. As for the ambient music, I really can't understand why anyone could say Fallout 1 and 2 are good but 3 isn't since in all 3 the ambient music is virtually non-existent anyway.



I think the game could be perfect in my eyes with a couple mods. Damage types, damage thresholds, item descriptions, crippling having much greater impact on enemies, the addition of factions, the addition of reputation, an increase on the skillcap to 200 or 300 (with increased point cost per point gained as you go over 100 and beyond). With those added, it'd be just about perfect as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, all the multiple bad things said about FOO aside, I must admit I hate it primarily because I dislike first-person RPGs and hybrid genres. It feels like a boring grindfest.

 

[TheRatKing]

Eh voice acting actually doesn't bug me too much, but neither does no voice acting. I would rather have no voice acting than piss poor va. While Fallout 3 isn't that bad, I wouldn't mind no voices.

What really bugs me is the gameplay. I miss being able to beat the crap out of some baddies without manual dexterity. I want my character's skill to be the ONLY thing that matters in combat, not the players twitch skills. I am trying to play only in VATS but the game is not balanced for it.

The fact is, Fallout 3 bores me, a lot. I really can't stand playing it for more than 10-20 minutes, while I once spent an entire day just playing Fallout 1, and beating it that night (thats what I call immersive).