Pwener
FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
This is obviously a very satirical critique on Ian shooting you in the back in F1. You just aren't clever enough to understand the intricately weaved writing of Fallout 3.
My defense of fallout 3
- Thread starter Helloitme
- Start date
This is obviously a very satirical critique on Ian shooting you in the back in F1. You just aren't clever enough to understand the intricately weaved writing of Fallout 3.
Black Angel
Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
To me they are both terrible in the same ways. Very light rpgs elements, laughable story and characters, dumbing down from previous games, nonsensical world where several locations just exist for the sake of being explored with no context or narrative. Most quests are clear black and white and they are very simplistic.
Pwener
FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
The core problem is Bethesda's philosophy in the player having to invest more than they should and go above and beyond to roleplay and have motivations beyond what the quest log gives you. In turn, the world is built around this philosophy.
The characters are a different problem altogether. But I will say that I do enjoy the exploration/collecting and that's where its strengths lie. In contrast, I enjoy New Vegas not for the (abysmal) exploration but for the characters and story. Although the exploration was fixed and is indeed quite enjoyable in the DLCs, especially Dead Money (omg best dlc evar) and Old World Blues.
I would best describe Fallout 3 as a diamond that has yet to be polished. Still pretty and valuable, but just that; unpolished.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Found the exploration in base game of New Vegas much better than the Bethesda's Fallouts. It wasn't super excitement on every corner, but the location placement made sense and a lot of locations had context and narrative. Most of the locations in Fallout 3 made no sense placement wise (like Old Olney right next to Republic of Dave) and lacked of any context or narrative.
I deccribe it as a turd that needs to burned in the deepest pits of hell.
Pwener
FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
I suddenly wonder how Fallout 3 would have been regarded if it had been a completaly original thing and not a not-quite-reboot of an already established IP.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Fallout 3 was actually my first Fallout and i had no preconceived notions of what the series was actually about. And i hated it. I absolutely hated it and this was before i even knew about the constant lore breaking. I already explained in a post above why i hated it.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R came out a year before and i found it to be a much better game. Specially the shooting. A lot of people love to use "judge on its own and don't compare it to the other Fallout games" but compared to games outside of the franchise, it still fails hard.
Pwener
FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
I hated it too the first time. Felt just like "Oblivion with guns." Ended up going as far as entering DC before returning it to the store. A year or so passes and I decided to give it an unbiased chance.
As for "lore-breaks," well, I'm not bothered by Jet and the BoS being on the East Coast or Vault-Tec having had FEV or the Enclave's determination for the Purifier or the GECK not being used instead of the Purifier or...
I will say that Fallout 3 has some very clever additions however. Like Psycho having been described as a drug of military origin in the classics and here we discocer said origin. Man, I don't even dislike Operation Anchorage. I'm not a blind fanboy like the OP and do admit there are issues but it's just a game, not a work of literature.
It's fun, that's all I care about.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Don't know what's being implied here, but this is not a defense to anything. Problems with something don't suddenly go away just because it's not meant to be something else.
Don't know why this has quotation marks, but fuck us for actually wanting the world to be consistent with its own rules. Which is something Fallout 3 completely fails at.
Pwener
FEV is the equivalent of a chest x-ray.
I'm not defending it. I'm just expressing why I'm not bothered by its issues.
saphalline
First time out of the vault
I enjoy Fallout 3 more than I should. By that I mean that I enjoy it more than my own personal critique of its individual elements. There is a lot I dislike about the game, and overall I would put it somewhere between Fallout Rip-Off and Terrible Game, but there is just something about it that makes it more enjoyable than I think it should be. Probably because it's a Bethesda game and they make unique enough experiences that it's practically its own genre at this point. I also think that calling it "Oblivion with guns" is an over-simplification since I think it's both better and worse than that, but that's almost getting pedantic about what amounts to semantics in the large scheme of things.
Comparing it to other games? I have a really difficult time with that. I kind of lump it together with modern Bethesda games: Oblivion through Fallout 4. It's better than Fallout 4 in my opinion, but that's obviously not saying much. It's just a Bethesda game with a Fallout theme badly applied to it.
Comparing it to other games? I have a really difficult time with that. I kind of lump it together with modern Bethesda games: Oblivion through Fallout 4. It's better than Fallout 4 in my opinion, but that's obviously not saying much. It's just a Bethesda game with a Fallout theme badly applied to it.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I would describe it as something else, and that Fallout:New Vegas is what you get for polishing the hell out of it.
*The latter being a work of art wrought from the worst of origin and circumstance.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
One thing I brought up the other day was about how I felt about Tenpenny Tower being morally grey. I think why I feel that way is because of two factors: Bessie & Herbert and looking past the karmic reward.
Like I said before, Bessie and Herbert are rather nice, sympathetic characters, yet one of them absolutely has to die. By themselves this would be a rather polarizing choice, do you kill the young girl who just wants to be loved and enjoy the life she had when she was younger or do you kill the adventurer who has been to many places and learned to enjoy the company of a person who many others angrily dismiss? The problem arises from the fact they're both part of unsympathetic groups which drowns the impact of the two characters. It becomes easy to forget or dismiss a friendly character if they're part of a group made of assholes.
As for the karmic reward, I just kinda dismiss it since in an RPG you shouldn't be always dictated what's right and wrong. Key words being "not always" since it's mostly how the writer designs the quest. That's where the interest comes in, not the karmic payout it gives. I admit this is technically cheating since you'd need to ignore a game mechanic to get any satisfaction out but I'd be willing to say we all ignore portions of the game, mechanical or otherwise.
But nonetheless, dictating how "good" or "bad" your karma isn't something I care much for in side quests like TT since it can interfere with how you designed you're character. New Vegas also lightly (very lightly though) dolloped into this, with Centurions giving you good karma for killing them, yet a Legion-aligned Courier would most likely not think of them as evil.
Like I said before, Bessie and Herbert are rather nice, sympathetic characters, yet one of them absolutely has to die. By themselves this would be a rather polarizing choice, do you kill the young girl who just wants to be loved and enjoy the life she had when she was younger or do you kill the adventurer who has been to many places and learned to enjoy the company of a person who many others angrily dismiss? The problem arises from the fact they're both part of unsympathetic groups which drowns the impact of the two characters. It becomes easy to forget or dismiss a friendly character if they're part of a group made of assholes.
As for the karmic reward, I just kinda dismiss it since in an RPG you shouldn't be always dictated what's right and wrong. Key words being "not always" since it's mostly how the writer designs the quest. That's where the interest comes in, not the karmic payout it gives. I admit this is technically cheating since you'd need to ignore a game mechanic to get any satisfaction out but I'd be willing to say we all ignore portions of the game, mechanical or otherwise.
But nonetheless, dictating how "good" or "bad" your karma isn't something I care much for in side quests like TT since it can interfere with how you designed you're character. New Vegas also lightly (very lightly though) dolloped into this, with Centurions giving you good karma for killing them, yet a Legion-aligned Courier would most likely not think of them as evil.
Ediros
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Cliffy McEdgeface
bitch I will cut you
Ediros
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Oh, HIM.I mean, OK, broken clocks and all that.
Then watch Caption. Both reviews describe shitout 3 perfectly. A broken mess of a game, that only uses brand recognition.
If I understand it correctly, Bessie and Herbert are nice, so it makes it a grey decision to kill them with the rest.
But in my opinion, it is not a grey decision. It is an evil decision to kill anyone in that quest.
As soon as you arrive at Tenpenny Tower you can witness the conversation between Roy and Gustave. There is nothing in it that would make wanting to kill one side or another a "good" deed. While one is a ghoul that is rude and blunt, the other is a racist that doesn't allow the ghoul and his friends to move in, which is in his right, since it is a hotel. But still, they are not "evil" enough to warrant killing any of them. If you pick the killing option based on this, you are taking a very clear "evil" path.
Then if you pick the option to convince the residents to accept the ghouls, you are clearly taking to "good" path. There is nothing morally grey about it. Because you are not forced to pick "kill this one or that one", you have the option of not kill anyone.
Now the consequences of letting the ghouls move in peacefully are not the good result one would expect, but that is "4th wall breaking knowledge", the character has no way of knowing that will happen. Which makes it still a "black and white" decision for the character. If we factor the "4th wall breaking" knowledge that the player has, then it is still a "black and white" decision, because the player can use the knowledge he has and kill Roy and then run like hell or using a stealthboy or something, and escape without having to kill Bessie.
Last edited:
Cobra Commander
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Yeah, TT would be best used in the defense that the game has no consequences for players actions (and it does not have, 90% of the time. Let's make that clear, okay? TT is a great exception) instead of being used as not a black & white quest.
Pitt is grey. To free the slaves (good) you need to steal a baby (bad). Good + bad = grey.
Pitt is grey. To free the slaves (good) you need to steal a baby (bad). Good + bad = grey.
Believe it or not, The Pitt is grey because if you steal a baby, the slaves life gets worse with their "freedom". But if you keep the slaves as they are, their future and The Pitt future are both a better future.
I dwell into that, over in this thread:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/was-i-supposed-to-feel-bad-the-pitt-dlc-discussion.215979/