Superplay Fallout 3 preview

[Tora]

Out of place based on what?
What have you seen that makes a house be out of place, given what you know about the house and the game.

See, you are assuming that the house will work exactly as you predict, which is an essential claim to make it out of place, considering you know NOTHING about its placement.

Why do you keep wanting to tie the house hate to me? Do you see me arguing that the house is out of place? NO
do you see me arguing that a mini-nuke launcher is out of place? YES.

There is a difference. Stop trying to stick words in my mouth.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with being able to have a house in the game. Though paying for it might be... weird considering the availability of estate should be pretty good. Then again it might be a nice house that took effort to re-furnish, who can say

 

[xdarkyrex]

Out of place based on what?
What have you seen that makes a house be out of place, given what you know about the house and the game.

See, you are assuming that the house will work exactly as you predict, which is an essential claim to make it out of place, considering you know NOTHING about its placement.

Why do you keep wanting to tie the house hate to me? Do you see me arguing that the house is out of place? NO
do you see me arguing that a mini-nuke launcher is out of place? YES.

There is a difference. Stop trying to stick words in my mouth.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with being able to have a house in the game. Though paying for it might be... weird considering the availability of estate should be pretty good. Then again it might be a nice house that took effort to re-furnish, who can say

Well your argument was originally against someone who was arguing that a house is easy to justify.

And my claim is that if you can condemn something based on assumptions, then you can also justify something based on assumptions.

They're the same thing.

 

[Tora]

Well your argument was originally against someone who was arguing that a house is easy to justify.

And my claim is that if you can condemn something based on assumptions, then you can also justify something based on assumptions.

They're the same thing.

Except your argument was more than just saying a house was easy to justify.

Not really, Look at science. You assume things to be true based on what you know, at least until you learn of new facts that show it to be otherwise.
You don't go "But there might be something (that I can't determine right now) that disproves my theories even though everything so far proves it."

We're not assuming anything except maybe for the fact that there won't be something to come along later to disprove our theories. There might be, but then again there might not. So you just leave your conclusions as they are and move on until its further proven or disproven.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Well your argument was originally against someone who was arguing that a house is easy to justify.

And my claim is that if you can condemn something based on assumptions, then you can also justify something based on assumptions.

They're the same thing.

Except your argument was more than just saying a house was easy to justify.

Not really, Look at science. You assume things to be true based on what you know, at least until you learn of new facts that show it to be otherwise.
You don't go "But there might be something (that I can't determine right now) that disproves my theories even though everything so far proves it."

We're not assuming anything except maybe for the fact that there won't be something to come along later to disprove our theories. There might be, but then again there might not. So you just leave your conclusions as they are and move on until its further proven or disproven.

Exactly
and what is the difference between his theory that it will be good, and any other hteory that it will be bad?

 

[Tora]

Exactly
and what is the difference between his theory that it will be good, and any other hteory that it will be bad?

One is based on known facts and the other is based on possibly unknown facts?

its like... Science VS Religion!
One where you don't have faith in the unknown, the other you do!

 

[xdarkyrex]

Exactly
and what is the difference between his theory that it will be good, and any other hteory that it will be bad?

One is based on known facts and the other is based on possibly unknown facts?

its like... Science VS Religion!
One where you don't have faith in the unknown, the other you do!

False analogy, as neither side claimed that they have faith in their assumptions being true, but seemed to imply that their assumptions are just explaining that it is possible and therefor should not be ruled out. There is also a such thing as "benefit of the doubt" that some people willingly attribute to Bethsoft because theyve liked their past games. Thats also only assumption though.

 

[Tora]

False analogy, as neither side claimed that they have faith in their assumptions being true, but seemed to imply that their assumptions are just explaining that it is possible and therefor should not be ruled out. There is also a such thing as "benefit of the doubt" that some people willingly attribute to Bethsoft because theyve liked their past games. Thats also only assumption though.

"imply that their assumptions are just explaining that it is possible and therefor should not be ruled out"
It is possible that there is a god, since I can't rule out this possibility. <- Religion.

"There might be a good reason for this out of place object, since I can't rule out this possibility I'll say its possible"

"It is possible that that gravity does not work as what I think based on what I know, but I'll conclude based on that for now until something new comes along" <-Science

"The BoS and Supermutants feel out of place based on what I know from Fallout 1/2 and the developer's claims of Tactics/BoS not canon to them either, so I'll conclude that they're out of place until we're given a good reason"

 

[xdarkyrex]

False analogy, as neither side claimed that they have faith in their assumptions being true, but seemed to imply that their assumptions are just explaining that it is possible and therefor should not be ruled out. There is also a such thing as "benefit of the doubt" that some people willingly attribute to Bethsoft because theyve liked their past games. Thats also only assumption though.

"imply that their assumptions are just explaining that it is possible and therefor should not be ruled out"
It is possible that there is a god, since I can't rule out this possibility. <- Religion.

"There might be a good reason for this out of place object, since I can't rule out this possibility I'll say its possible"

"It is possible that that gravity does not work as what I think based on what I know, but I'll conclude based on that for now until something new comes along" <-Science

"The BoS and Supermutants feel out of place based on what I know from Fallout 1/2 and the developer's claims of Tactics/BoS not canon to them either, so I'll conclude that they're out of place until we're given a good reason"

Lol, I'm sorry, but I can't even bother with that one.
Trying to debunk something that far off is tantamount to banging my head on a wall.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, seeing as how I am about to start repeating myself.

I strongly suggest you read this for a while though.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

 

[Tora]

Lol, I'm sorry, but I can't even bother with that one.
Trying to debunk something that far off is tantamount to banging my head on a wall.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, seeing as how I am about to start repeating myself.

I strongly suggest you read this for a while though.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

hey, I know what fallacies are, and just for the record, I know that the example up there isn't exactly 'correct', but it was meant as a joke more than anything, and its just as good as "comparing fallout 3 to oblivion only because that's what the masses understand". 'Sides Its not like the purpose of this debate is about it being like science vs religion, but more on how the negativism (not all) tends to be based more off known facts while the "benefit of the doubt" defences or based more off "faith" in what "might yet be shown" *shrug* you might look at it differently but that's what I think anyway

 

[draeke]

Why do you keep wanting to tie the house hate to me?

That is too funny. lmao

 

[Vault 69er]

Out of place based on what?
What have you seen that makes a house be out of place, given what you know about the house and the game.

See, you are assuming that the house will work exactly as you predict, which is an essential claim to make it out of place, considering you know NOTHING about its placement.

Look. Bethesda wanted to make a Fallout. They called it Fallout 3. In terms of setting you don't get to play the "we don't know the specifics!" card.
Buyable houses don't fit in Fallout. Period. It doesn't matter what excuses you make. They don't fit.
If Bethesda had made their own PA game then they could have buyable city-sized airships for all I care. But this is supposed to be Fallout, and we have every right to judge this by what Fallout is.

 

[Ausir]

"The BoS and Supermutants feel out of place based on what I know from Fallout 1/2 and the developer's claims of Tactics/BoS not canon to them either, so I'll conclude that they're out of place until we're given a good reason"

I can agree on the BoS, but Super Mutants were said to have traveled East in one of FO1 endings, so IMHO them being in the DC is OK, although not their appearance in the game.

 

[Bad_Karma]

The possibilite to get a house either thorugh 'buying'/'killing'/'claiming' isn't a bad thing, but i can't imagine a proper way of making it good.

Just look at Oblivion, it's not possible to decorate some random house, wich inhabitans you killed. It's not able to open up a 'shop' (replace with brothel or bar or slavery-outpons for Fallout 3 example ).
So this possibility is very limited by the engine as it seems. And that would look a bit dull i think.

Therefore i don't like the idea, also because i don't think such a feature belongs to Fallout 3 (bad this is really only personal taste i think).

 

[Killzig]

there's something that doesn't sit right about the prospect of land ownership in a post apoc world. If it's anything like the implementation in most games (and Oblivion) it'll be a mostly useless feature built in just for you to have something to spend game currency on and incur some loot/fedex quests from.

 

[LazyD]

Why don't they just make this a straight FPS? Making my character a bad shot when I'm controlling the shot will only serve to frustrate me. Don't compromise that aspect of gameplay when it's not going to satisfy those who wanted TB.

As for Radiant AI, will they stop calling it that? It's scripting. Nothing more.

Otherwise, I'd make some sort of Swedish joke about your character being neutral, but I'm gonna go to bed.

They already started making an FPS.. In fact I've been pondering if the fallout demo at E3 and the trailer were all a hoax and Fallout 3 is nothing but a pre-alpha for http://bethsoft.com/games/games_roguewarrior.html

 

[boer_kameel]

I read the house topic on the main site, and could have guessed there would be some "heated" discussion about this fact.

I liked it in Baldur's Gate (ok, it wasn't a house, it was a castle/keep).

It could fit in the setting... As some mentioned before, in places like Shady Sands / NCR, where you just can't whack the owners (not resoring to "silent killing" like stimpak or tnt) because the authorities will (try to) blow you off your feet.

If there is a somewhat central location, where the collector-kind of player could stash his rocks, guns and those valuable things, why not?
You could even stash all your wives there, make some unkillable female children, and start a brothel called "all in the family".

Oh yeah. Sweet.

 

[Vault 69er]

Regardless of whether there are any NCR type towns or not, it still goes against the spirit of Fallout.
You're a drifter, a stranger. Far from your home, be it a Vault or a village full of pathetic unwashed losers that.. *goes on for a while* .. and the horse they rode in on!
The car in Fallout 2, far from violating that, enhanced that spirit in a way. A buyable house would just kill it dead. "I'm far from my Vault in this horrible wasteland.. will I ever get back? What does my future hold... oh well, time to rest in the comfy bed in my house while I display my Vault Boy bobbleheads in an attractive fashion!"

 

[Tandy]

A house,how nice..can we have some pets too please.How about a shop? now that would be nice.Can we breed animals ? i would love to have my little Brahmin herd.Can i grow grain or strange green fruits?

Oh iam so exited,iam looking forward to travel the wastes find some seed and making alot of friends.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Out of place based on what?
What have you seen that makes a house be out of place, given what you know about the house and the game.

See, you are assuming that the house will work exactly as you predict, which is an essential claim to make it out of place, considering you know NOTHING about its placement.

Look. Bethesda wanted to make a Fallout. They called it Fallout 3. In terms of setting you don't get to play the "we don't know the specifics!" card.
Buyable houses don't fit in Fallout. Period. It doesn't matter what excuses you make. They don't fit.
If Bethesda had made their own PA game then they could have buyable city-sized airships for all I care. But this is supposed to be Fallout, and we have every right to judge this by what Fallout is.

I've yet to see a point in this thread that says why houses are dumb other than "because we didn't have houses beforee!!!!"


What kind of logic is that? If it hasn't been done before, don't do it?

 

[Tannhauser]

Actually, Darky, I see arguments to the effect that it doesn't fit the setting, as has been defined by the previous games. While you can, inaccurately, sum that up as you just have; it is little more than a clumsy dodge.

I think the basic idea can have merit, if handled like Fort Abandon was going to be. However, if we take the purchasable houses in Oblivion (which Fallout 3 is showing an undeniable similarity to and is the mainstay of the developer's experience), which were nothing more than money sinks; I believe Fallout would be better without them. Since Bethesda has shown that they are basing their Fallout substantially on their previous experiences, I believe there is sufficient cause to worry on this small point.