Name reasons you thought Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas

[TerminallyChill]

Pretty relevant. It also swaps into the games' general design philosophies.

That poor guy getting his hopes up about Fallout 4's intro being quick...

Glad he touched on how Fallout 3 funnels you through the vault, and New Vegas funnels you to the city. End the funneling now, people!

Why's that a bad thing, though? Good VR integration, I mean. It's a good step, only RE7 out of the AAA scene has really dabbled into it.

I would say it's just another unnecessary distraction for a developer that doesn't need any more right now. They already have a tendency to get fixated on certain arbitrary aspects of a game while neglecting the core mechanics. Fallout 4 has great first person shooter controls, but hardly utilizes the few meaningful statistics it actually allows the player to choose. The settlement building system exists, yet you only have a few different types of quests. Bethesda currently has a very big problem with identity. Throwing VR into the mix is just going to give them another avenue through which they can spread themselves thin. You can't be everything to everyone, which is what Todd Howard wants to do.

 

[Norzan]

Why's that a bad thing, though? Good VR integration, I mean. It's a good step, only RE7 out of the AAA scene has really dabbled into it.

I didn't meant VR was bad (even though it's just a fad that eventually will go away in my opinion). I meant Bethesda will make a terrible Elder Scrolls or Fallout game and since they are trying to push VR by making VR ports of their major successes, it's going to be in VR.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

I didn't meant VR was bad (even though it's just a fad that eventually will go away in my opinion).

Didn't people say that about 3D and basically every single major tech advancement? You could be absolutely right though, I myself do think it's the future, just a bit long of a way there.

I meant Bethesda will make a terrible Elder Scrolls or Fallout game and since they are trying to push VR by making VR ports of their major successes, it's going to be in VR.

Well, a bog standard Bethesda ForumlaTM game designed from the ground up with VR in mind sounds really damn juicy to me. There's really not much that could compete with such a thing.

And eh, @TerminallyChill, if it's another pointless gimmick at least it'll be interesting for the span of it. I'd say that they're big and funded enough to actually make the pick n' mix open world sandbox game design work. If it's not VR, it'll be, I don't know, the Dating Sim mode or whatever the hell.

 

[Norzan]

Didn't people say that about 3D and basically every single major tech advancement? You could be absolutely right though, I myself do think it's the future, just a bit long of a way there.

I was young when the 3D craze began, so i don't remember people saying that. But honestly, 3D felt like the natural progression of graphics to me.

I could be wrong about this being a fad, but this just feels like the motion controls craze all over again. Motion controls only pretty much currently exist in Nintendo consoles and the WiU and Switch have way less emphasis on motion controls than the Wii had. This combined with the fact that, as far i can tell, people always end up gravitating back to a regular controller because they pretty have been the norm since at least the NES.

If it leads to more cool games, i'm fine with it.

 

[Atomkilla]

Didn't people say that about 3D and basically every single major tech advancement? You could be absolutely right though, I myself do think it's the future, just a bit long of a way there.

This.

I actually believe that as technology progresses, video games will be much more important in everyday life. The current generation of children in wealthy part of the world will tomorrow have dedicated gaming rooms, where VR will surpass the meager limits of a headset and controllers. Think of huge simulations.
That being said, I don't think "regular" gaming will die out. It will just be another option.

 

[TerminallyChill]

And eh, @TerminallyChill, if it's another pointless gimmick at least it'll be interesting for the span of it. I'd say that they're big and funded enough to actually make the pick n' mix open world sandbox game design work. If it's not VR, it'll be, I don't know, the Dating Sim mode or whatever the hell.

Don't give them ideas! You're probably right, though.

I could be wrong about this being a fad, but this just feels like the motion controls craze all over again. Motion controls only pretty much currently exist in Nintendo consoles and the WiU and Switch have way less emphasis on motion controls than the Wii had. This combined with the fact that, as far i can tell, people always end up gravitating back to a regular controller because they pretty have been the norm since at least the NES.

If it leads to more cool games, i'm fine with it.

Ultimately form just needs to follow function. Some game formats like WarioWare worked really well with motion controls. I can definitely see Bethesda's attraction to virtual reality since their design priorities are more based around creating an immersive experience now than actual games. I just wonder how far they can stray before they completely lose their original customer base. I'm certainly not buying anything from them any time soon. The casual mass-market road is paved with short attention spans and zero loyalty as Nintendo found out. I'll be curious to see what happens to this company in the future.

 

[Norzan]

Ultimately form just needs to follow function. Some game formats like WarioWare worked really well with motion controls. I can definitely see Bethesda's attraction to virtual reality since their design priorities are more based around creating an immersive experience now than actual games. I just wonder how far they can stray before they completely lose their original customer base. I'm certainly not buying anything from them any time soon. The casual mass-market road is paved with short attention spans and zero loyalty as Nintendo found out. I'll be curious to see what happens to this company in the future.

Definitely not saying motion controls totally sucked, there were several games that i actually preferred to play with motion controls. Like the Metroid Prime trilogy, where it made aiming so much better. But at the moment, it's pretty much something that has completely disappeared, for the most part.

I'm not touching any in-house made games from Bethesda until they get their shit together (which probably will never happen). I might try some of the ones they published because those i know they didn't made themselves personally.

 

[TerminallyChill]

@Norzan

Just came across this video and instantly thought of our conversation. I think it sums up pretty well why I think that Fallout 3 can be immersive despite not making any sense under close inspection.



Towards the end he talks about how the new Doom engages players enough in other ways to prevent them from asking too many questions about how the world actually works. This is how I personally felt while playing Fallout 3 and watching the movie Signs for the first time. Hearing other people point out critical logic failures later, I'm like "oh yeah" but I never had time to realize that in the moment. I can definitely see how other people would notice these things if they were less wrapped up in some other aspect of the work, though. Distraction must play a role in immersion to an extent.

 

[a721402]

Towards the end he talks about how the new Doom engages players enough in other ways to prevent them from asking too many questions about how the world actually works. This is how I personally felt while playing Fallout 3 and watching the movie Signs for the first time. Hearing other people point out critical logic failures later, I'm like "oh yeah" but I never had time to realize that in the moment. I can definitely see how other people would notice these things if they were less wrapped up in some other aspect of the work, though. Distraction must play a role in immersion to an extent.

Play a role in immersion, no. Make you look at something else so you won't spend time to thinking about it, yes.
Many light hearted games and TV shows do that, and rarely have people complain about it, because those games/shows don't take themselves seriously.
And that's not what Beth's FO3 is.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Why would you say Fallout 3 takes itself seriously? Sure, there are some serious moments, mostly with youy dad, but that's kind of it. Plus, "seriousness" is a bit of a spectrum rather. It's more about the tone. You can adress a serious tone with withwe light heartedness or grim determination and the serious subject can remain the exact same.

 

[TerminallyChill]

Laser weaponry, nuclear powered cars, snarky propaganda spewing robots, long-lived radioactive zombies, muscular green mutants, big headed aliens, giant insects, edible two century old food, a cryogenically preserved samurai befriending a cowboy, Abraham Lincoln's gun, your father getting turned into a dog inside a computer simulation where you become a ten year old serial killer, Abraham Lincoln: the action figure, Moira Brown, a cult dedicated to worshipping an atomic bomb, a society of children living in a cave wearing silly costumes while banning adults, and oh yeah, a talking suit of armor.

Gritty.

 

[Norzan]

Laser weaponry, nuclear powered cars, snarky propaganda spewing robots, long-lived radioactive zombies, muscular green mutants, big headed aliens, giant insects, edible two century old food, a cryogenically preserved samurai befriending a cowboy, Abraham Lincoln's gun, your father getting turned into a dog inside a computer simulation where you become a ten year old serial killer, Abraham Lincoln: the action figure, Moira Brown, a cult dedicated to worshipping an atomic bomb, a society of children living in a cave wearing silly costumes while banning adults, and oh yeah, a talking suit of armor.

Gritty.

The same excuse Peter Hines used to make the "Kid in the fridge" quest. Think about that, to make one of the most lore breaking quests in the series, a quest that destroys one of the most powerful moments in Fallout 1.

The real world is also full of stupid stuff. The point is, Fallout 3 is trying to be this super serious drama about how people don't have water to drink and yet, it's filled with stupid crap that undermines that. Not to mention how apparently people not having access to water somehow doesn't affect them. They just go on their merry ways and survive on air and magic fairy dust.

This wouldn't be a problem if it was the first game of a new IP. But it is not, it's the third game of a series that is trying, for the most part, to mimic the real world.

 

[Gizmojunk]

...

Not to mention a veritable feast of toilet humor.

Spoiler

 

[TerminallyChill]

The same excuse Peter Hines used to make the "Kid in the fridge" quest. Think about that, to make one of the most lore breaking quests in the series, a quest that destroys one of the most powerful moments in Fallout 1.

I think that goes more into the category of 'not understanding your source material' rather than 'lack of seriousness'. What's the serious option, that a 200 year old irradiated human survived by eating, drinking, and breathing?

Fallout 3 is trying to be this super serious drama about how people don't have water to drink

Is it really though? From my understanding of Todd Howard's directorial intentions, it was just supposed to be a game which was fun to explore. They didn't give a shit about the story, which is why it sucks ass and makes no sense.

This wouldn't be a problem if it was the first game of a new IP. But it is not, it's the third game of a series that is trying, for the most part, to mimic the real world.

I agree. But it's also made by a completely different team with entirely different objectives. That's not an excuse for dropping the ball so hard, but honestly, what did you expect?

 

[Norzan]

I think that goes more into the category of 'not understanding your source material' rather than 'lack of seriousness'. What's the serious option, that a 200 year old irradiated human survived by eating, drinking, and breathing?

Peter Hines was criticized on Twitter for that quest and he used "This is a franchise with green, muscly mutants" non-argument. And yes, the 200 year old ghoulified human that survived by eating, drinking and breathing would have been the serious option. Because it's what is established in the previous games, that ghouls can live for a very, very long time. Dean Domino is nearly 200 years old as far as i remember, even though it's from the game after Fallout 3, but it follows what was established in the first two games.

A world can have a set list of rules that make no sense in the real world. But they do make sense for that world. So, breaking them just because those rules don't make sense with the real world is a terrible design decision. It breaks the illusion of that world you created being believable by its own rules.

Is it really though? From my understanding of Todd Howard's directorial intentions, it was just supposed to be a game which was fun to explore. They didn't give a shit about the story, which is why it sucks ass and makes no sense.

Nah, they definitely wanted to make this super epic story. If they didn't wanted, they wouldn't get people like Liam Neeson or Patrick Stewart (Oblivion). That's just a waste of lot of money for something that is supposed to be stupid and make no sense. This is just Bethesda being incompetent.

 

[Gizmojunk]

...That's not an excuse for dropping the ball so hard, but honestly, what did you expect?

I had very high expectations for FO3. I had never heard of Bethesda at the time, so I didn't know any better—until much later, but when I learned that they had acquired the license, I went out and bought the Oblivion CE (with the coin).

I was exceedingly impressed with all that I saw in the first mission to escape the prison, and thought how magnificent their Fallout sequel could be. Their customized engine is well suited, and in many cases they needed only to rename certain mechanics that already existed in Oblivion. The Star Signs were effectively the same as the Traits in Fallout; Potions/Stimpacks, the map levels could easily have exited into their fast-travel map screen; and the Gamebryo engine had already been used in top-down RTS games, so it would have been trivial to set it up like Fallout 1 & 2.

*It never even occurred to me that a sane mind would approach the project as a first person franken-shooter. But they did.

 

[TerminallyChill]

And yes, the 200 year old ghoulified human that survived by eating, drinking and breathing would have been the serious option.

Ok, I see where this conversation is going. Just because Fallout did something doesn't mean it's serious, believable, or realistic. That's what I was talking about. Forget internal consistency for a second and just think about that idea as it relates to our world.

Nah, they definitely wanted to make this super epic story. If they didn't wanted, they wouldn't get people like Liam Neeson or Patrick Stewart (Oblivion). That's just a waste of lot of money for something that is supposed to be stupid and make no sense. This is just Bethesda being incompetent.

I guess I can't argue with that. Do me a favor though. Go talk to somebody who likes Fallout 3. I will bet you any amount of money the reason has more to do with gameplay than story. You treat Fallout 3's world building as though it's the most prominent, important piece of the game. In reality, it takes a back seat to just about every other aspect from the mechanics, to the music. It's just not that important to people. I know you don't think sales or reviews matter, but do you just assume that every single person alive who enjoyed that game is a bumbling idiot?

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Nah, they definitely wanted to make this super epic story. If they didn't wanted, they wouldn't get people like Liam Neeson or Patrick Stewart (Oblivion). That's just a waste of lot of money for something that is supposed to be stupid and make no sense. This is just Bethesda being incompetent.

What does that have to do with being serious or not? Sir Patrick Stewart is in the fucking Emoji movie and Liam Neeson protagonizes Clash Of Clans' most popular ad. Bethesda overly focusing in gimmicks for marketing's sake is nothing new by any means whatsoever.

Hell, I'd say Skyrim is their attempt at being serious. Whacky and bizarre nonsesne is basically kept to sporadic encounters, some of the Daedric Quests and some other silly details left by the world designers. And it really falls on its face most of the time. I don't see barely any of this in Fallout 3. It's clear that Bethesda prefers to take Fallout with a more campy approach. This not only refers to the story but also game design wise, where the tone is still conveyed. You don't really face big consequences for your actions outside of the area where you commited them, if at all. You don't really get locked out of content nor does conflict arise. You're supposed to not worry and just go along and explore that world that may feel more like an amusement park, for good and bad. This was briefly mentioned in the video I posted earlier.

 

[Norzan]

Ok, I see where this conversation is going. Just because Fallout did something doesn't mean it's serious, believable, or realistic. That's what I was talking about. Forget internal consistency for a second and just think about that idea as it relates to our world.

It's not supposed to relate to the real world, it's supposed to relate to its own world. Just because it makes no sense to the real world, the real world should never, ever be a factor to how something even works in that world.

You treat Fallout 3's world building as though it's the most prominent, important piece of the game. In reality, it takes a back seat to just about every other aspect from the mechanics, to the music.

Because that's the problem. The first two Fallout games cared about world building, one more than the other. It's always has been one of most important factors in this series and just the fact Bethesda doesn't care it about is a travesty.

If they didn't care about world building, do that shit with another IP. Don't drag and muck up a franchise that was known for its world building.

What does that have to do with being serious or not? Sir Patrick Stewart is in the fucking Emoji movie and Liam Neeson protagonizes Clash Of Clans' most popular ad. Bethesda overly focusing in gimmicks for marketing's sake is nothing new by any means whatsoever.

Yes, let's waste a ton of money on actors, that for the most part, are known for their work on serious movies. Totally makes sense.

Those two things happened way after Fallout 3 and Oblivion. Don't know why you bring them up.

And yes, Fallout 3 is trying to be a serious story. It has several moments where is supposed to be overly dramatic (your dad's sacrifice for example), but the constant stupid shit undermines whatever seriousness it's trying to achieve. Specially when that stupid shit is related to water, the main conflict of the game.

You can have serious stuff with a little bit of stupid stuff. But you can't have a bunch of campy shit and then try to be overly serious all of the sudden like Fallout 3 is trying to be in several occasions. That serious stuff fails on principle.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Here is a funny factoid about Black Isle:
I was so impressed that they cast Michael T Weiss, as the voice of the Nameless One in Planescape.

His reputation was popularly known (at the time) for playing the Pretender; a genius jack of all trades that assumed a different professional identity in every episode of the show.

Years later I asked MCA about it, and he told me that ... It just worked out that he was available at the time, and had said yes when they asked; nothing more to it than that.
()