J.E. Sawyer on the Legion and post-endgame play

I do think though that the experience with Vegas was a worse experience because of the shitty engine they had to use.

Does not mean Vegas was a bad game. But it could have been much better if they had more time to work on the engine or at least chose some engine which was better suited for the game they wanted to make.
 
eh, I'd still pick NCR :)
I understand that the Legion would have been a kick-ass slaver group with a sense of justice in their lands and even a force to be reckoned with by the NCR if Obsidian had enough time to finish enough details, but they are still the same Legion that we love and hate.
 
Mr. House was the best choice of all, however.

To know Las Vegas was Sin City once more certainly warmed my heart. Plus, Mr. House only ever kiled the Elvis impersonators.
 
The_Noob said:
Mr. House was the best choice of all, however.

To know Las Vegas was Sin City once more certainly warmed my heart. Plus, Mr. House only ever kiled the Elvis impersonators.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Kings still live. :D
 
EvilBastrd said:
Izual said:
Walpknut said:
Make up your mind.
Click to expand...
GTA 1 and GTA 4 are totally different. However one is a poor version of the other.

I think your "what Fallout should be"-bars are just set unreasonable and unreachable high.
Click to expand...
Fallout should give me the same experience as the 1997-8 Fallout games did. If it can't, then don't call it Fallout.
Click to expand...


In a RPG, it is all about story. You don't need graphics, you don't need turn based, all you need is quality continuation of a story.
.
Click to expand...

wat


A good story might be cool for an RPG, but it isn't worth shit if the underlying mechanics are crap (like in New Vegas). The combat system has to be good (it was shit in New Vegas - can't blame Obsidian though).

There were many good RPG without any story at all.
 
Yes, the combat system is shit in Arcanum, there is no redeeming factor to it. It could have been so much better, but instead they went with a Realtime/Turnbased hybrid where none of the two systems was good, not even talking about ridicolously overpowered mage spells. The character system is such a good base, it is a shame there was not enough time ( ? ) to develop the bones of the actual fighting, a thing the developers seemed to love by seeing the endlessly long dungeons and trashmobs in the game.

Lexx said:
Examples?
Click to expand...

As if you wouldn't have understand this. :roll: Or do you want to tell me that each RPG must have an awesome story full of plot-twists, amazing choices and consequences etc? For sure, I agree that everyone perceives the term "RPG" different, but I think if even the combat system is incredibly shitty or the character development isn't fun at all, a game isn't fun, else I can read a novel. (And yes, I liked the combat in Planescape Torment before someone comes up with that)

All I wanted to say is, that it's pretty shortsighted to call the story the one and only redeeming factor that makes and breaks an RPG. There is a lot more than this.
 
I want you to give examples of good RPGs without any story at all.
 
And I want you to be less of a smartass and actually read what is written in the explanations. Sometimes we don't get what we want, it seems?
 
In other words, the story quality is fuggin' important and can even salvage a game that is subpar in other aspects? Noted.

But yeah, to each his own, I guess. To be honest, I have more fun with New Vegas' combat than I did with Arcanum's. :shrug:
 
I couldn't agree with Solar more.

Gameplay over story all the way. This is the reason some people still play games like Pokemon (compettively, at least), CounterStrike and Mario Hacks.

The core gameplay is so good, that every other aspect is overriden by it. Or is that just me?
 
I think Obsidian's main goal was to fit as much Dialogue and story elements as possible. They probably copied and pasted the gameplay aspects and graphical quality from Fallout 3, and focused on how they were gonna TRULY continue the series (Failout 3 didn't do a good job).
 
For NCR said:
I think Obsidian's main goal was to fit as much Dialogue and story elements as possible. They probably copied and pasted the gameplay aspects and graphical quality from Fallout 3, and focused on how they were gonna TRULY continue the series (Failout 3 didn't do a good job).
Click to expand...

Yes and they succeeded, in that regard they delivered a good game. That's why I said I don't blame them for the actual framework (gameplay) much.
 
The_Noob said:
I couldn't agree with Solar more.

Gameplay over story all the way. This is the reason some people still play games like Pokemon (compettively, at least), CounterStrike and Mario Hacks.

The core gameplay is so good, that every other aspect is overriden by it. Or is that just me?
Click to expand...

You just listed games that are not RPGs.

Maybe it is because I started with PnP and the first CRPGs I played were text with N, N, E, E, Attack, Attack, Flee as my commands, that I find a story so important.

But if I play a RPG with a shit story, I either won't finish it, and if I do, I won't replay it. FONV has what I look for in a RPG. Character development, good story, replay value.

Even as an old bastard, I have not struggled with the combat system, and I use VATS and at the same time enjoy blowing enemies away with Gauss Rifle in real time sniping.

My favorite book is Blood Meridian. If I compared every book, to that book, I would never enjoy another novel again. There is no fun in that.
 
I was citing extreme examples of games people still play because of core game mechanics.

Story is very important, but only if it's balanced by gameplay. If a game has great gameplay AND story (ie; Bastion, original Fallouts, Planescape Torment, etc.), then it is a truly great game.
 
The_Noob said:
I was citing extreme examples of games people still play because of core game mechanics.

Story is very important, but only if it's balanced by gameplay. If a game has great gameplay AND story (ie; Bastion, original Fallouts, Planescape Torment, etc.), then it is a truly great game.
Click to expand...

Alright... well, what do you consider balanced gameplay? Because frankly, FO1 and 2 are extremely easy games. I find turn based as the easiest form of combat there is, maybe due to extensive play in games of that style.

But I question your balanced gameplay when in FO1 and 2 if you focus your character to combat, you can complete the game with ease, and in FO2 take down the toughest enemies with a BB gun. Now, it is fun to do that...but easy.

Likewise, in NV I have a genuine fear of Deathclaws...
 
Makagulfazel said:
In other words, the story quality is fuggin' important and can even salvage a game that is subpar in other aspects? Noted.

But yeah, to each his own, I guess. To be honest, I have more fun with New Vegas' combat than I did with Arcanum's. :shrug:
Click to expand...
well good gameplay is just as important like a good story.

A good story can be quite simple. Same for the gameplay. But it has to fit. That is one of the important parts. I think the gameplay in Vegas simply does not fit to a Fallout game. But that is because its from Oblivion, to Fallout 3 and then Vegas. Obsidian tried to do the best possible in that short time. Still. Shooter gameplay and RPGs mix very bad in my eyes. But thats me. But despite that I think Bethesda could have done much more with that. Anyway. Saying gameplay isn't important if the story is top notch is a bit shortsighted in my eyes.

*By the way if you want a game that has basically no story line to follow but with great gameplay then my choice would be Jagged Alliance 2. The story in that game was really nothing more then "go there, kill everyone who is shooting you". But it doesn't matter. The story had not to win a prize. People played JA for different reasons. Because of the well made TB combat.

The_Noob said:
I couldn't agree with Solar more.

Gameplay over story all the way. This is the reason some people still play games like Pokemon (compettively, at least), CounterStrike and Mario Hacks.

The core gameplay is so good, that every other aspect is overriden by it. Or is that just me?
Click to expand...
I would not say that good gameplay completely exceeds a "story". A "good" story should be present. Now what is good? That is a difficult question. As I said, a Story has not to be super complex, mature or what ever to be good. It has to fit the game. It depends what you want to achieve. Does it bother someone in Mario that you have to rescue the princess now for the 1000th time? Or the world in Bomberman? Or killing the Bydo in god knows how many R-Type games? Not important. The story is just there to get you somehow started not to distract you. And it is doing the job rather well. I am sure they could do all the complicated stuff in a Mario-jumpandrun style game. And there have been such kind of games. And some are pretty good. But not all of them have to be that way. Diversity is a nice thing in my eyes.
 
@Crni Vuk

Totally agree about JA, and can include XCom in that regard somewhat.

But, those are not RPGs. They are strategy games. Very good strat games.

I have played RPGs with crap story, and they collect dust. And I have played RPG with crap story and crap mechanics. If I had my preference, I would go good story over mechanics every day. That is generally gets most replay value from me, and is how I guage my fun factor.

Games that have great gameplay have their place as well.
 
plaidchuck said:
So what's the worst thing about combat in fallout 3/NV?
Click to expand...


The horrible AI is one of my complaints. I hate when raiders charge at you from 300 meters away armed with only a switchblade, pool cue, and spear. Many games share that shortcoming though including the original Fallout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top