The Positive Thread
- Thread starter El_Smacko
- Start date
What? You claimed the voice-acting was, and I quote 'great'. Now you're qualifying it with 'pretty good' and 'for a game that has a few hundred characters' (which it doesn't have, by the way).Humpsalot said:
Voice acting isn't great. It's mediocre at best. Perhaps it's mediocre because they spent money or time on getting people like Liam Neeson, who is a good actor but not a good voice actor.
Er, I'd love to have a discussion, maybe you should try to reply to my arguments instead of whining that I'm being an asshole.Humpsalot said:
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Reasons to be positive about fallout 3:
- To put it simply, they nailed the environment. It is a bleak world. It looks like you picture a post apocalyptic city. I don't care if the 200 years throws some of you off, it is a really cool looking world and environment they have created. I also could care less about repetitive damage patterns. I grew up with every battle background being identicle, what do I care if the houses are damaged the same.
--The random encounters seem to be well implemented. You encounter groups of enemies generally in camps or strategic locations. Not just out in the middle of nowhere. They seem to have character to their equipment and appearance.
--The item system is deep. Not sure how many weapons there actually is in the game--I choose to believe there are more weapons then what is listed in the pocket guide), but the armor list seems quite extensive. I for one am glad that you can take what the people you kill are wearing. I used to get so irritated about the fact that you could take out a whole group of vault city patrol guys wearing combat armor, but couldn't take it off of any of them.
--The world and its inhabitants are bleak and so is their life. They don't view the world happily, they don't feel the need to be polite or even friendly. They have all had their friends and loved ones chewed up by this abomination of an existence their ancestors thrust them into and it has shows. The life they live has left its imprint on them drastically.
--First person view. To be honest, I thought this was a horrible idea when I first read about it. My opinion has sense changed. I went back and played FO1 and 2 and Tactics and had something occur to me. The iso view and even the turn based combat weren't what made Fallout Fallout. It was the interactions with the other characters, the multiple response options, the effects they had on the world. Being able to tell Lenet to soak her head, or the vault city chief of security that you can see your fist hitting his face, or taking the medical assistant out on a date and even getting to do a whole wierd dialogue on population control that could end up with you making a sperm deposit. This was fallout. The rest is just dressing. If they get the interaction right who cares about the view point.
--They have kept things like traveling merchants that you can meet in the wasteland. This is something I always loved in FO2, especially when I got some A-hole who told me I was a do gooder and should go do good somewhere else.
---Location damage and the enemies run from you when they are in trouble.
That is a good start. Naysayers and those who disagree, feel free to argue with me, just don't expect a response. This is a positive thread, not a general discusion thread.
- To put it simply, they nailed the environment. It is a bleak world. It looks like you picture a post apocalyptic city. I don't care if the 200 years throws some of you off, it is a really cool looking world and environment they have created. I also could care less about repetitive damage patterns. I grew up with every battle background being identicle, what do I care if the houses are damaged the same.
--The random encounters seem to be well implemented. You encounter groups of enemies generally in camps or strategic locations. Not just out in the middle of nowhere. They seem to have character to their equipment and appearance.
--The item system is deep. Not sure how many weapons there actually is in the game--I choose to believe there are more weapons then what is listed in the pocket guide), but the armor list seems quite extensive. I for one am glad that you can take what the people you kill are wearing. I used to get so irritated about the fact that you could take out a whole group of vault city patrol guys wearing combat armor, but couldn't take it off of any of them.
--The world and its inhabitants are bleak and so is their life. They don't view the world happily, they don't feel the need to be polite or even friendly. They have all had their friends and loved ones chewed up by this abomination of an existence their ancestors thrust them into and it has shows. The life they live has left its imprint on them drastically.
--First person view. To be honest, I thought this was a horrible idea when I first read about it. My opinion has sense changed. I went back and played FO1 and 2 and Tactics and had something occur to me. The iso view and even the turn based combat weren't what made Fallout Fallout. It was the interactions with the other characters, the multiple response options, the effects they had on the world. Being able to tell Lenet to soak her head, or the vault city chief of security that you can see your fist hitting his face, or taking the medical assistant out on a date and even getting to do a whole wierd dialogue on population control that could end up with you making a sperm deposit. This was fallout. The rest is just dressing. If they get the interaction right who cares about the view point.
--They have kept things like traveling merchants that you can meet in the wasteland. This is something I always loved in FO2, especially when I got some A-hole who told me I was a do gooder and should go do good somewhere else.
---Location damage and the enemies run from you when they are in trouble.
That is a good start. Naysayers and those who disagree, feel free to argue with me, just don't expect a response. This is a positive thread, not a general discusion thread.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
Not that difficult if you're going for generic post-apocalyptic.
Do any of the environments look like Fallout to me? Except the Vault (which is not that fucking difficult to copy and yet they fail with the door for example), nope they don't. And let's not forget about chandeliers, eh?
In even less words: Fallout =/= generic post-apocalyptic.
rcorporon, what the hell man? You used to me more positive about this game if I'm not mistaken?
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
ok gonna have to break my own rule and reply:
Groin shots are the most overated thing about Fallout. Who cares about shooting a guy in the nads. If you had complained about not being able to target the eyes I wouldn't have argued, but groin shots....
Also, several people have discussed random encounters running away after you shoot them. I am too lazy to track down more then one so here you go:
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200808/N08.0828.1708.59976.htm
I believe that is the one, can't read it right now, but if I remember correctly, he gets in a fight with a random merchant, and after he starts winning, the merchant runs off and he has to chase him down.
Groin shots are the most overated thing about Fallout. Who cares about shooting a guy in the nads. If you had complained about not being able to target the eyes I wouldn't have argued, but groin shots....
Also, several people have discussed random encounters running away after you shoot them. I am too lazy to track down more then one so here you go:
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200808/N08.0828.1708.59976.htm
I believe that is the one, can't read it right now, but if I remember correctly, he gets in a fight with a random merchant, and after he starts winning, the merchant runs off and he has to chase him down.
FeelTheRads said:
True, I tried to keep a very positive attitude toward FO3, but as they showed more and more, and it looked less and less like Fallout, I became upset.
I also recently tried to replay through Oblivion on my PS3 to try to get back into the "Bethesda" feel of things, and recalled what a steaming pile of shit that game was compared to Morrowind.
So, I'm quite concerned now about this new Halo... I mean Fallout FPS game.
Groin shots are part of the FO world, like it or not, and should be included in any game that dares use the "Fallout" title in it's name.
Oh, the environment doesn't look bad, and especially the Vault looks good. But it doesn't look Fallouty, which is a problem for most of us.Texas Renegade said:
I have to agree here, although it was mostly a question of balance in Fallout (and to a lesser extent logic, since killing someone in armour usually means getting through and thus destroying the armour).Texas Renegade said:
If you look at Fallout 1, for part of the game you could pick up every armour off of someone you killed (specifically, the raiders camp). This felt really unbalanced as you took very quick jumps in armour power, and suddenly had truckloads of the stuff to sell meaning that you had no money problems (and this really cannot be remedied, except by making all armour a lot cheaper, which would result in the imbalance of getting very expensive armour quickly through buying it).
That's not to say that this will happen in Fallout 3, though. Perhaps they've balanced it perfectly.
Borderline trolling here. But the viewpoint existed for two reasons:Texas Renegade said:
- P&P gameplay
- Combat
Most people here won't object to a (possible) first-person view for exploration and the like, but for the Fallout feel at the very least it needs to be there for combat.
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Actually, the armor thing in FO2 would have been balanced quite effectively by the lack of money in the world. you could get a trunk load of weapons that you could never trade or sell for near worth.
On the view thing, it isn't trolling to say that I no longer see the viewpoint change as a negative. It is taking the game in a different direction, but as I said, I don't feel that Iso or turn based made Fallout Fallout.
On the environment...no it doesn't look the same as burned out brown california from the originals, but some of this is also the FPS perspective.
I like the way they are interpreting it...just as I like the way the originals did. I just don't see it as a one is right the other is wrong.
Granted if I did, I would be mad, but I don't.
On the view thing, it isn't trolling to say that I no longer see the viewpoint change as a negative. It is taking the game in a different direction, but as I said, I don't feel that Iso or turn based made Fallout Fallout.
On the environment...no it doesn't look the same as burned out brown california from the originals, but some of this is also the FPS perspective.
I like the way they are interpreting it...just as I like the way the originals did. I just don't see it as a one is right the other is wrong.
Granted if I did, I would be mad, but I don't.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
Ahem.. let's see. First of all, and this should be most obvious, even for the untrained eye: the world looks like the bombs just fell. And this is after 200 years. You'd figure people would start cleaning the shit out by then. Hell, they did in the previous games.
Then, were are the buildings specific to Fallout? Apart from the ruins there were houses and shelters that people built, like those white buildings. Where are those?
THEN! Then there were no, and I stress on that, NO real-life buildings in the other games. This once again detracts from Fallout's feel.
You simply can't get more generic than Bethesda did. Maybe only if you remove the random 50ies signs they threw around the landscape so they say "HYE, ITZ FALUT, ITS GOTZ TEH 50 SINGS!!11"
Camera has shit to do with all these.
Ugh.Texas Renegade said:
Either you are being willfully ignorant or you're trolling. Pick your poison.
No, turn-based and isometric view didn't make Fallout Fallout, at least no more than the dialogue or the setting did. They are all contributing parts.
And as we have shown time and again, and objectively turn-based and isometric view are very much parts of the core design of Fallout.
Whether or not you will like a game that claims its Fallout but lacks those parts I don't know, but they are certainly less Fallout because of it.
Now this is definitely trolling.Texa Renegade said:
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I could be wrong but I believe someone already pointed out the actual denver skyline was in Van Buren. Which, if you want to talk realism, would have been in a much harder hit area then DC considering it is a fact that the Rocky Mountains would have been hit with the largest concentration of Nukes in the case of a U.S. Soviet missle launch due to the existance of NORAD.
Most people who have played seem to believe that Megaton is very similar to junktown.
If you are meaning the metal shacks, I believe someone has already mentioned that you find a prostitue named silver in a metal shack.
Plus, its kinda hard to remove stone rubble with your hands, especially when there is the ever present threat of getting killed by raiders or put in a cage by a super mutant.
You have to get past the survivalist civilization before you start rebuilding everything.
Most people who have played seem to believe that Megaton is very similar to junktown.
If you are meaning the metal shacks, I believe someone has already mentioned that you find a prostitue named silver in a metal shack.
Plus, its kinda hard to remove stone rubble with your hands, especially when there is the ever present threat of getting killed by raiders or put in a cage by a super mutant.
You have to get past the survivalist civilization before you start rebuilding everything.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
Goddamnit, you're pissing me off. Do you really want to defend Bethesda against any logic because you love them so much or are you just dumb. Seriously. What the fuck?
Who in god's fucking name was talking about realism? And you're seriously comparing having the skyline (as a background I assume or something, I don't know what is you're talking about exactly) to actually having the buildings in the game?
Do you really think the previous game assumed all real buildings were destroyed and now Fallout 3 just comes and fixes this mistake? Or what?
Is it that difficult to understand that they didn't use any real buildings so they'd have a special setting and not a generic one?
I corrected my previous post, in which I forgot to add a word. I didn't mean metal shacks, those are not really specific to Fallout, but those white buildings.
Good thing they have chandeliers, but they can't pick up rubble.
Who in god's fucking name was talking about realism? And you're seriously comparing having the skyline (as a background I assume or something, I don't know what is you're talking about exactly) to actually having the buildings in the game?
Do you really think the previous game assumed all real buildings were destroyed and now Fallout 3 just comes and fixes this mistake? Or what?
Is it that difficult to understand that they didn't use any real buildings so they'd have a special setting and not a generic one?
Most people are imbeciles.
I corrected my previous post, in which I forgot to add a word. I didn't mean metal shacks, those are not really specific to Fallout, but those white buildings.
Good thing they have chandeliers, but they can't pick up rubble.
FeelTheRads said:
Am I an imbecile?
The concept of Megaton is clearly derivative of Junktown.
Texas Renegade
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
you toss out insults because I express positive ideas in a positive thread and I am the one accused of trolling. Nice.
BTW, don't say having the actual buildings in fallout 3 breaks the fallout world, if having the actual 2001 denver skyline in van buren isn't the same thing.
Who gives a hoot.
BTW, you don't see those buildings until vault city, which is well into the game so it is entirely reasonable to expect those buildings may exist later in the game.
Finally, I have said before it has nothing to do with BS, I don't particularly care for them, but this game seems to have potential to me as a good fallout game.
Thank you and good night.
BTW, don't say having the actual buildings in fallout 3 breaks the fallout world, if having the actual 2001 denver skyline in van buren isn't the same thing.
Who gives a hoot.
BTW, you don't see those buildings until vault city, which is well into the game so it is entirely reasonable to expect those buildings may exist later in the game.
Finally, I have said before it has nothing to do with BS, I don't particularly care for them, but this game seems to have potential to me as a good fallout game.
Thank you and good night.
Nick: Oblivion style… (from the interview above)
I didn't like oblivion; so I can expect to be dissappointed a touch more.
Let's face it, lots of people are dissappointed so it's hard to stay positive on something everyone enjoyed so much that is (seemingly) being butchered.
I didn't like oblivion; so I can expect to be dissappointed a touch more.
Let's face it, lots of people are dissappointed so it's hard to stay positive on something everyone enjoyed so much that is (seemingly) being butchered.
reticulate
First time out of the vault
Sander said:
I fail to see how that could be constituted as trolling.
He's expressing a point of view, not baiting you into an argument by being sarcastic.