Three more The Pitt screenshots
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
So? I don't really understand how THIS could be a flaw... Maybe you want them to make it rainbow-wide colored? Aw, c'mon, man, design has, imho, to be coherent this way in a game like this one.ComradeNu said:
It will be a big fucking laugh of this anticipated critics, I suppose, when the DLC comes out and player will be able to just find out "HOW" and "WHY". Yeah, that's right, you ALL anticipate it; and that you have judged it already by some screenshots really shows your attitude and purpose of your criticism (which nature is: "I don't really care about the game, let's just blah-blah some absurdal critic shit about it"). It's of course true that 200 years after this kind of war it's NOT POSSIBLE for any steelwork to still be active; nor for any asphalt road not to be covered with dust; nor for so many buildings in DC to stand still; and so on. But then, it's not really possible that events like those in F1 and F2 could ever happen. Super mutants? Master? The Glow, which was directly struck and you can still repair it's lights? WHAT A BIG LOAD OF BULLSHIT! - But then, it's still sci-fi bullshit. Try to consider it.Ausdoerrt said:
I guess it's all the problem of imagination and convention. Every convention has some "undefinied places", where imagination goes in and fills it with stuff (I see it this way); so if the game is in 2D, you don't really have to wonder "Just how and why the hell they managed to build all those stone huts in Shady Sands to look all the same!?", because what's the part of some convention is (mostly) not to be considered an incoherence. So, yeah, the game itself and the convention in which it is made are two different things, imo; and most of this criticism I read here is about convention, not the game (F3) itself. But then, saying that Fallout should be left in 2D or so makes me think that some people identify a game with it's convention; and it's a big mistake. You know: because if people would identify literature with some papyrus rolls on which it was written, they would never move on to print them on paper. And while printing books was criticised as well as hygiene or computers, world just moved on. Didn't it? So I guess a lot of you critics are just unprepared for the future or, maybe, should read some more about the way that fiction, any fiction, takes place. So you probably will be able to see absurdity in brawling about some "logic" and "common sense" (which is, in my opinion, another neo-scholastic bullshit), using none of it, but just some ineffictient "retoric" and irony this world would be better without...
I see there are a lot of constructive criticism here, like that F3 has "bad voice acting" (not so bad, but for sure, it's not "GTA IV"...) or "bad writing" (yeah... sometimes it seems just like random lines tied together). But try not to judge this DLC before it comes out just because you think you know Bethesda and can - in some unknown way - "imagine what they will do with it".
That was my opinion and I surely understand it's not the only one in the world.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
I see there are still people who don't understand what sci-fi is.
Just how the hell can you intrude anyone to take YOUR definition of sci-fi as a common one? Or IS there any common one? Just prove it for the means of any further discussion. Or you can always define it here. But if you believe that your definition of sci-fi is only one correct or that it has only one face, one definition at all, then I have to agree, there are still people who don't understand it...
duma said:
You're the second person in the thread to say something like this. Not original anymore, and not funny. The only people saying "fallout should be 2D" are the people like you who come in and randomly claim, without reading the forums, that we all think and say that, even though it doesn't happen. The obvious strawman is obvious.
The colour filter concern is valid - thus far anything FO3 has looked exactly the same, with monotonous colours and a colour filter. Why not make it, maybe not rainbow coloured, but, you know, the way other games normally do it - a standard, balanced palette?
As for the inconsistency, you failed to read & understand my post - Shady Sands huts (to use your examples) looking the same aren't questioned so much because, like I said, people care about how less than they do about "why" - and Shady Sand's existence was perfectly explained as a small village of people from valut 15, barely managing to survive. I'm not judging the DLC before it comes out, but I am certainly eager to hear some sort of viable explanation as to WHY the steelworks are still running 200 years after nuclear holocaust. But, it is reasonable to anticipate there will not be one, given the previous record of FO3 to not explain basic things like that.
there is no issue to have steel works, factories, machines and productions runing.
The issue is usualy that Bethesda is sloppy and either gives very bad explanations or no one at all, just as like in the usual Fallout 3. Seriously, how can one explain people survive without farming? Still working gas leaks, robots randomly runing around in the wasteland or even worse a robot factory right next to a village that has not been looted, so it basically waited 200 years in the desert no 30 sec. walk time away from a community just for a guy out from a vault?
Considering how bad Fallout 3 already was when it comes to verisimilitude (not realism ...) any kind of "criticsm" regarding the Pitt DLC has its place here. Particularly since Bethesda DEFINETLY has shown skill in the past when it comes to a world with some verisimilitude like they did with Morrowind, Morrowind gave the illusion of economy. Fallout 3 does not even give you that. And the same people that needed 3 years or even more to finish this mediocre experience some call "Fallout" have worked with the Pitt DLC (instead of working on patches which should have been the TOP priority!). And how much time did they spend with it? 4 months?
Seriously now one has really not to know anything about the Pitt that it will at least not provide a experience much different to the core Fallout 3.
The issue is usualy that Bethesda is sloppy and either gives very bad explanations or no one at all, just as like in the usual Fallout 3. Seriously, how can one explain people survive without farming? Still working gas leaks, robots randomly runing around in the wasteland or even worse a robot factory right next to a village that has not been looted, so it basically waited 200 years in the desert no 30 sec. walk time away from a community just for a guy out from a vault?
Considering how bad Fallout 3 already was when it comes to verisimilitude (not realism ...) any kind of "criticsm" regarding the Pitt DLC has its place here. Particularly since Bethesda DEFINETLY has shown skill in the past when it comes to a world with some verisimilitude like they did with Morrowind, Morrowind gave the illusion of economy. Fallout 3 does not even give you that. And the same people that needed 3 years or even more to finish this mediocre experience some call "Fallout" have worked with the Pitt DLC (instead of working on patches which should have been the TOP priority!). And how much time did they spend with it? 4 months?
Seriously now one has really not to know anything about the Pitt that it will at least not provide a experience much different to the core Fallout 3.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
duma said:
Let me give you a simple example:
Supermutants, The Master, The Glow are sci-fi.
Working factories and burning gasoline (from pipes sprouting randomly from the ground) in a world destroyed over the lack of fuel is not sci-fi. It's idiotic.
Get it? Very simple. Also, you seem to come from the TESF school of thought (har, har) where there are no facts or definitions, just opinions, so I'm sure there's no point in arguing with you, but what the hell, let's give it a try.
To "Ausdoerrt":
I never did claim that *you all* think and say that Fallout should remain 2D. Those are your words and in your contrargument you're addressing them. I did write "some people". Didn't I? I really think you should address what I write or say directly, not them fancy random your paraphrases of it (because this way you can prove me truly anything what I never even thought).
Let me explain it, will you? And yes, I read this thread carefully enough to believe what I have to say is not a waste of time for you. Just try not to take any offence and be fair with what I write.
First things first...
Let me tell you more: I believe there is some kind of pre-attitude in you, that won't let your imagination do the work for them "undefinied places" in F3. I am not saying it is because you would like Fallout to remain the same or so; those reasons are your to keep. But then we have to see that in 3D game our imagination has far different work to do and that may be why you won't let it. While in F1 or F2 you gave it handicap at the beginning (because of the convention), it was no wonder for you how the hell could you possibly run a pre-war tanker or fly some rocket in cancelled Van Buren. In F3 you may surely wonder how did they manage to run Liberty Prime after the war while it was not possible before. But is it - in any way - less possible than running this tanker or rocket? I'm not so sure. Use your imagination. And if you're giving a break to still standing DC downtown or asphalt roads, you can give it to running Liberty Prime or some steelworks as well, just as you did with repairing this generator in The Glow or such... This is the way any fiction goes.
And I'm not telling you to *justify* all them plot lacks; some of them may be evident. But as long as they're not - they are not to be, ummm, charged. Nor anticipated.
To "Crni Vuk":
I see it this way: Bethesda will surely cover terms of *why* raiders have those steelworks. Even if they do not, there are still a lot of purposes: like keeping slaves occupied so they won't do any revolution nor break. It's not so stupid. Our history know a lot of examples of such strategies in so, so many prison camps of XX century...
See: still running steelworks 200 years after the war is just as possible as doing any farming. Quite impossible imho. It has nothing to do with "verisimilitude" (I guess you mean simple "mimesis" by it) as you take it in your everyday life. But fictional world will always have fictional laws; even those physical ones. And whatever takes place in it, should be verisimile by terms they gave.
This is the way I see it.
To "FeelTheRads":
I get it and guess you're right about this sci-fi. So there's always some point in arguing.
Just see that those gasolines are as idiotic as mentioned asphalt roads and DC downtown standing... I bet you know what I mean.
My mistake I *explained it* by means of Fallout being a sci-fi setting. Yes. If there are only opinions, accepting one means being consequent all the further way.
I never did claim that *you all* think and say that Fallout should remain 2D. Those are your words and in your contrargument you're addressing them. I did write "some people". Didn't I? I really think you should address what I write or say directly, not them fancy random your paraphrases of it (because this way you can prove me truly anything what I never even thought).
Let me explain it, will you? And yes, I read this thread carefully enough to believe what I have to say is not a waste of time for you. Just try not to take any offence and be fair with what I write.
First things first...
In terms of convention *how* is pretty much *why* I guess. Because, you see: you're not trying to tell me that fact people from Shady Sands emerged from V15 and are barely managing to survive explains in *any way* WHY all those huts look the same, do you? This can only be *justified* by considering it is the part of the 2D-graphic convention. This is the "undefinied place" your imagination goes in and fills it. That means those stone huts are just simplified sign of how them stone huts would really look like. So you're, in fact, giving F1 and F2 a huge break BECAUSE it is 2D. While you can't give a break that huge to a game which is 3D because what is 3D is (mostly) not a sign (in that meaning I mentioned it before) but exact look of something. That is what I wanted to say when I wrote aboud identyfying a game with it's convention. Some convention may make you to give a game which is using it a bigger handicap; but only if you're willing to. Because if you do not, you don't have to *justify* all them stone huts looking all the same...Ausdoerrt said:
Let me tell you more: I believe there is some kind of pre-attitude in you, that won't let your imagination do the work for them "undefinied places" in F3. I am not saying it is because you would like Fallout to remain the same or so; those reasons are your to keep. But then we have to see that in 3D game our imagination has far different work to do and that may be why you won't let it. While in F1 or F2 you gave it handicap at the beginning (because of the convention), it was no wonder for you how the hell could you possibly run a pre-war tanker or fly some rocket in cancelled Van Buren. In F3 you may surely wonder how did they manage to run Liberty Prime after the war while it was not possible before. But is it - in any way - less possible than running this tanker or rocket? I'm not so sure. Use your imagination. And if you're giving a break to still standing DC downtown or asphalt roads, you can give it to running Liberty Prime or some steelworks as well, just as you did with repairing this generator in The Glow or such... This is the way any fiction goes.
And I'm not telling you to *justify* all them plot lacks; some of them may be evident. But as long as they're not - they are not to be, ummm, charged. Nor anticipated.
To "Crni Vuk":
I see it this way: Bethesda will surely cover terms of *why* raiders have those steelworks. Even if they do not, there are still a lot of purposes: like keeping slaves occupied so they won't do any revolution nor break. It's not so stupid. Our history know a lot of examples of such strategies in so, so many prison camps of XX century...
See: still running steelworks 200 years after the war is just as possible as doing any farming. Quite impossible imho. It has nothing to do with "verisimilitude" (I guess you mean simple "mimesis" by it) as you take it in your everyday life. But fictional world will always have fictional laws; even those physical ones. And whatever takes place in it, should be verisimile by terms they gave.
This is the way I see it.
To "FeelTheRads":
I get it and guess you're right about this sci-fi. So there's always some point in arguing.
Just see that those gasolines are as idiotic as mentioned asphalt roads and DC downtown standing... I bet you know what I mean.
My mistake I *explained it* by means of Fallout being a sci-fi setting. Yes. If there are only opinions, accepting one means being consequent all the further way.
DexterMorgan
A Smooth-Skin
Physical labor: when seeing your friend's insides turned into wall decorations just isn't enough.
Making steel: when there's enough frozen dinners to go around that farming is just unnecessary.
Making steel: when there's enough frozen dinners to go around that farming is just unnecessary.
Of course I saw the wicker man, it is an art asset in an expansion, and if you guy’s think it does not look good then ok, but it gets brought up like it’s some spit in the face. “Oh lord, the wicker man, the wicker man!”
I guess the bottom line is that I’m coming from a different background than most people on this forum. I write game reviews (and movies, and restaurants) therefore I consider objectivity to be my default state. If fallout 3 did the best job a big game studio could to adapt the series when frankly nobody else has been able to keep a project alive, then that is my new fallout 3. And since it is fun, has lots of areas to explore and is highly modable, I’m really into it.
A lot of the opinions here I see come from a distillation of daily one-upmanship in some sort of Olympics of complaining. Look at the most recent posts for example… “the game is unfeasible, people would starve world of fallout 3, where is the agriculture?”. I don’t see how it is any worse than fallout 1 in which people only ate iguanas on sticks and fruit. Personally I’m working on a mod that makes the world of fallout 3 a little bit deeper, since I enjoy modding and I don’t have the time to fester over 10 year old games. And seeing people dissect each picture that comes out day by day, god, it reminds me of the secretaries here that can’t get over Brad and Angelina, only unlike the people here sometimes they talk about other stuff.
Ok, resume the complaining.
PS on the working steel works: my take is that they work through slavery, just like people built pyramids. Its not a marvel if ingenuity, it is an example of raider cruetly being industrialized.
I guess the bottom line is that I’m coming from a different background than most people on this forum. I write game reviews (and movies, and restaurants) therefore I consider objectivity to be my default state. If fallout 3 did the best job a big game studio could to adapt the series when frankly nobody else has been able to keep a project alive, then that is my new fallout 3. And since it is fun, has lots of areas to explore and is highly modable, I’m really into it.
A lot of the opinions here I see come from a distillation of daily one-upmanship in some sort of Olympics of complaining. Look at the most recent posts for example… “the game is unfeasible, people would starve world of fallout 3, where is the agriculture?”. I don’t see how it is any worse than fallout 1 in which people only ate iguanas on sticks and fruit. Personally I’m working on a mod that makes the world of fallout 3 a little bit deeper, since I enjoy modding and I don’t have the time to fester over 10 year old games. And seeing people dissect each picture that comes out day by day, god, it reminds me of the secretaries here that can’t get over Brad and Angelina, only unlike the people here sometimes they talk about other stuff.
Ok, resume the complaining.
PS on the working steel works: my take is that they work through slavery, just like people built pyramids. Its not a marvel if ingenuity, it is an example of raider cruetly being industrialized.
lugaru said:
You do realise you're posting on a forum with more than one professional or amateur game writer on it, right?
Also, anyone who tries to defend the lack of plausibility Bethesda blatantly pasted into the Fallout setting, both in the completely illogical game world of Fallout 3 and in the DLCs, is just kidding himself. They're doing it for the cool, and if you're an uncritical consumer that's fine, but our standards are a bit higher than that.
duma said:
Actually, it's because they used a GECK to construct the village.
duma said:
It's one thing to simply accept or ignore blank spot in a world that is overarchingly plausible, but Fallout 3's game world simply makes no effort to be coherent or plausible at all. People's motivations don't work, the economy doesn't work, there's no source of food, there is slavery without there being any need for them, easy-to-access areas are somehow still not looted after two centuries, and even the dialogue is so bad you have to fill in your own blanks.
I'm fine with having to do some work in any fantasy. That's no problem. Fallout 3 is asking me to do all the work, because its designers were too incompetent to draft up a halfway plausible gameworld.
duma said:
Not something I wonder about. Liberty Prime is terrible game design, a sign of Bethesda's pathologic need to do "cool shit", but it's not implausible in-game.
duma said:
You're going to have to qualify that remark. 200 years in, background radiation would long since have faded, and while the long-term ecological effects would still be there some form of adapted farming is always possible, you just have to find out what kind of low-consumption high-yield crop you can do, and apply crop rotation and the necessary basic fertilization techniques (remember the conversation with the farmer in Shady Sands). Hell, evolution was kind enough to provide the post-war people with the highly adaptable and useful brahmin, who provides horsepower, skin, meat and - presumably - milk, enough to be the cornerstone of any agricultural economy, not to mention being exceedingly tough.
More importantly, farming makes sense. There's always need for food, and it's one of the first thing you can build and trade in, without any major technological resources.
Steel mills? There just isn't any how and why for it. People are still scrounging parts in Fallout 3, why would there be any need for steel production when I can just tear the doors off the RobCo plant. And where would they get ore, or the energy to run it?
You're trying to equate something extremely plausible with something completely implausible. It doesn't work that way. You have to think about the game-world and see what works. A cigarette or alcohol factory would actually work before a steel mill would (Fallout 2 does in fact have distilleries), simply by the nature of how much steel there is left from before the war. Think of the way the economy functions in Dr Strangelove, Fallout 2's economy is very similar to it, Fallout 3's is just ridiculous.
To "lugaru":
Those "Olympics of complaining" are, as far as I can see it, a proof that fans are caring about Fallout to stay canon. And is, in fact, a good thing (because F3 is sometimes out of canon: like when you happen to find out that Vault-Tec is experimenting with FEV, which was property of West-Tec as far as I remember). It's *their* game; so they criticise. Only this criticism should not be pushed to maximum. And not because in F1 we ate only iguanas and such (well I ate also some pills almost everytime I played) but because F3 is very good Fallout game (imho). Them inconsequences are in no way going to ruin a fair gameplay experience... and fair expanding of Fallout world.
And to "Brother None":
Mentioned conversation with farmer in F1 in Shady Sands may be as well a proof.
About them crops and requalifying my remark: guess you're right. It makes sense all right what you're saying about economy. I may now see that there is no such thing in F3. Now, Bethesda is probably going to introduce it. Let's wait to see it. Maybe it will have it's *how* and *why* as well?
I mostly accept your contrarguments as fair and well-thought.
Those "Olympics of complaining" are, as far as I can see it, a proof that fans are caring about Fallout to stay canon. And is, in fact, a good thing (because F3 is sometimes out of canon: like when you happen to find out that Vault-Tec is experimenting with FEV, which was property of West-Tec as far as I remember). It's *their* game; so they criticise. Only this criticism should not be pushed to maximum. And not because in F1 we ate only iguanas and such (well I ate also some pills almost everytime I played) but because F3 is very good Fallout game (imho). Them inconsequences are in no way going to ruin a fair gameplay experience... and fair expanding of Fallout world.
And to "Brother None":
If they have used GECK, why would they have problems with drought and rising crops in F1? The way I see it is they acquired GECK later, after the events from first Fallout, maybe from V15, maybe not, to estabilish NCR. While Shady Sands was estabilished by refugees and they probably wouldn't have time, escaping, to take terraforming module with them.Brother None said:
Mentioned conversation with farmer in F1 in Shady Sands may be as well a proof.
About them crops and requalifying my remark: guess you're right. It makes sense all right what you're saying about economy. I may now see that there is no such thing in F3. Now, Bethesda is probably going to introduce it. Let's wait to see it. Maybe it will have it's *how* and *why* as well?
I mostly accept your contrarguments as fair and well-thought.
Basic disagreement, then. Fallout 3 is not a good Fallout game. Fallout is, at its core, a pen-and-paper emulating RPG set in a retro-50s post-apocalyptic world.
The gameplay elements were completely dropped despite the fact that they were the core of design of the original two, with the setting only pasted in after, originally.
The setting only comes in slightly better, with Bethesda's predilection to just do whatever is cool without much thought bringing up many inconsistencies, the biggest of which is the foolish design decision to first move the setting cross-coast and then - instead of starting fresh with new factions - moving way too many factions cross-coast as well. Turning the BoS from a xenophobic techno-cratic insular society to the saviours of the wasteland, turning the Enclave from something that's dead to something that isn't but should be since it's run by a terminally stupid president, turning supermutants from a partially viable future for the wasteland if not for the reproduction flaw into stupid brutes that just want to kill everything...Fallout 3 does more wrong in setting than it does right. Heck, most of what it does right is superficial. It's still post-apocalyptic. It still has elements of retro-50s in visuals. If that's enough for you, I won't complain, but that's a pretty narrow part of Fallout's setting.
The gameplay elements were completely dropped despite the fact that they were the core of design of the original two, with the setting only pasted in after, originally.
The setting only comes in slightly better, with Bethesda's predilection to just do whatever is cool without much thought bringing up many inconsistencies, the biggest of which is the foolish design decision to first move the setting cross-coast and then - instead of starting fresh with new factions - moving way too many factions cross-coast as well. Turning the BoS from a xenophobic techno-cratic insular society to the saviours of the wasteland, turning the Enclave from something that's dead to something that isn't but should be since it's run by a terminally stupid president, turning supermutants from a partially viable future for the wasteland if not for the reproduction flaw into stupid brutes that just want to kill everything...Fallout 3 does more wrong in setting than it does right. Heck, most of what it does right is superficial. It's still post-apocalyptic. It still has elements of retro-50s in visuals. If that's enough for you, I won't complain, but that's a pretty narrow part of Fallout's setting.
Agreed. I believe we're having similiar thoughts about it and see it pretty much the same way. Only my response to F3 is a bit more *positive*, I guess. It's why I would never say that Bethesda is doing *whatever* is cool. Still, they're doing what *is* cool. In some way... (-:
I guess it depends partially on how you see game design, anyway.
I don't really believe in this "primacy of fun" game design. Gaming is about fun, no doubt, but that doesn't mean the primary focus of developers should be fun. The primacy brings about a design that is focused on giving the player the fewest possible challenges and the highest possible reward. Fallout 3 and Fable II are rather unbashful examples of this design school, and Todd Howard's been pretty honest about it.
I'm a bigger fan of the design school where Fallout comes from, where games are still fun, but they're about something more, in the case of Fallout there being a consistent design focus on emulating pen and paper gameplay. You don't have to worry about the player getting frustrated if that frustration is a part of the reward, and in that school of design you get ultimately better, more satisfying games, in my opinion.
It's a shame Fallout had to go from one design school to the other.
I don't really believe in this "primacy of fun" game design. Gaming is about fun, no doubt, but that doesn't mean the primary focus of developers should be fun. The primacy brings about a design that is focused on giving the player the fewest possible challenges and the highest possible reward. Fallout 3 and Fable II are rather unbashful examples of this design school, and Todd Howard's been pretty honest about it.
I'm a bigger fan of the design school where Fallout comes from, where games are still fun, but they're about something more, in the case of Fallout there being a consistent design focus on emulating pen and paper gameplay. You don't have to worry about the player getting frustrated if that frustration is a part of the reward, and in that school of design you get ultimately better, more satisfying games, in my opinion.
It's a shame Fallout had to go from one design school to the other.
duma said:
Well :
First : it looks ugly.
Second : it sums up how much thought was put in the atmosphere. "Everything orange = furnaces, rusty iron = cool. Blue = cold, shiny, bloom = cool
You get the idea...or not.
duma said:
What ? If I gave any less of a fuck about this DLC the particles of my body would probably turn into anti-matter and I'd vanish into the void...I didn't even play Operation Anchorage and don't plan to, ever... This DLC just looks like more of the same. Bethesda has been serving players more of the same for the last five years and I do not see any objective reason why I would give them yet another chance while even official screenshots look like, well, more of the same ( but orange ).
Now I can certainly agree that the gaming style, reward system and lore has changed for the sequel, especially when this argument is not presented with the word "Suxcks!" next to it.
And to some extent I agree with you, had they made fallout 3 into a snail paced tactical rpg that punishes the player with every imaginable penalty from heat stroke to gangrene, I would of probably been there right next to you playing it. Hell... I played X-COM, probably one of the meanest games ever made.
But I do enjoy this FPS take on Fallout, and I kind of like the Renfair heroic brotherhood as one splinter, although I would of preferred it if they where the outcasts and what is now the outcasts (mean, xenophobic, technocratic) would of been the main group. In the end I never even liked the brotherhood much in the previous games since once I had power armor, a sniper rifle and some stealth boost the game was broken and over. I know that is purely my fault for minmaxing. And the same happens with Fallout 3... I love that to the end I was still using some of my first weapons, and I haven’t bothered downloading the 21st century laser sighted assault rifles and lightsabers that people put up as mods. I like the game hard, and given my relative skill it is just hard enough.
So in the end I agree that fallout 3 is flawed, but I find the hatefest I see here to be comical. But dammit, if you guy's get together and Finish Van Burren, or make a new top down 3d super faithful fallout, I'll buy it from you on Steam. In the meantime though, I really am enjoying what Bethesda is doing, and this is coming from somebody who just could never finish Oblivion.
And to some extent I agree with you, had they made fallout 3 into a snail paced tactical rpg that punishes the player with every imaginable penalty from heat stroke to gangrene, I would of probably been there right next to you playing it. Hell... I played X-COM, probably one of the meanest games ever made.
But I do enjoy this FPS take on Fallout, and I kind of like the Renfair heroic brotherhood as one splinter, although I would of preferred it if they where the outcasts and what is now the outcasts (mean, xenophobic, technocratic) would of been the main group. In the end I never even liked the brotherhood much in the previous games since once I had power armor, a sniper rifle and some stealth boost the game was broken and over. I know that is purely my fault for minmaxing. And the same happens with Fallout 3... I love that to the end I was still using some of my first weapons, and I haven’t bothered downloading the 21st century laser sighted assault rifles and lightsabers that people put up as mods. I like the game hard, and given my relative skill it is just hard enough.
So in the end I agree that fallout 3 is flawed, but I find the hatefest I see here to be comical. But dammit, if you guy's get together and Finish Van Burren, or make a new top down 3d super faithful fallout, I'll buy it from you on Steam. In the meantime though, I really am enjoying what Bethesda is doing, and this is coming from somebody who just could never finish Oblivion.
DexterMorgan
A Smooth-Skin
How long have you been playing?
lugaru said:
I do get this angle, honestly, though I don't think everyone here does. I mean, I enjoyed Fallout 3, just not as a Fallout game, and thought it was certainly an improvement on Oblivion (but that's not too hard).
I get that people can recognize it does a lot wrong as a Fallout game but still enjoy it. I think people here on NMA tend to be a bit stricter than that, and in recognizing it fails as a Fallout dismiss the game as a whole, which I also think is a valid approach. The only thing I can't stand is people who - without studying the matter at all - refuse to acknowledge how Fallout 3 deviates from Fallout 1/2, or claim that - despite it calling itself a sequel - this just doesn't matter.
DexterMorgan said:
Me? Played the first two as they came out. I didint pick up tactics until 2004 because I had just moved to the US and I didint have my own computer yet. I never tried Brotherhood of steel since I'm not a console gamer and because frankly I hear it not only failed as a Fallout game but also as a game in general. Lots of repetition and all that.
Now for sure I havent played and replayed for the last 10 years, I did spend a lot of time developing new skins and characters for Freedom Force (a superhero tactical game) and big chunks of my life have been dedicated to work, school, relationships and friends. But yeah, at the end of the day I usually boot up a game I like, which is currently Fallout 3.