Visual crack likes Fallout 3

[Dougly]

If any of you old hands have tips I would be very much appreciative of the help.

Yeah. Don't drink the glowing water.

Sorry... another "in joke," this time a reference to dialogue with a character from the first game.

On a more serious note: I'd be interested in knowing, after you play both games, which one you like more.

Like many here, I feel that F1 did a better job at getting the "setting" right - it was more desolate, hopeless, and mature. The fact that there was less civilization in general (by F2, the Cali area has started to "redevelop" a bit, and we even see politics rear its ugly head), helped with the whole "blown back to the stone age" feel.

Regardless of this fact, however, I find that I play F2 much more often. I'm not entirely sure why, but I think it may have to do with the lack of a time limit, and the larger number of areas to explore.

Do play Fallout 1 first, though. I think it makes things more enjoyable to go through in order.

Something to keep in mind about Fallout is that it doesn't take place in "our future," but, rather, in the future of an alternate universe, where the Cold War never ended, Communism never "fell," different technologies developed, and the U.S. remained mired in a 1950s era "Red Scare" mentality. Check around on NMA, and other Fallout sites, for info on the background of the Fallout universe.

 

[Bodybag]

I'd agree if you weren't asking for it with your constant straw manning (yes, straw manning in the actual meaning of the word, as in attempting to paint your opponent's argument as stupid by extending it ad absurdo or the like).

Guess what? I still think you're way too quick to ring the strawman alarm, and that it's a really cheap, lazy defense. Don't I at least get points for not shitting up every argument with painful fucking analogies? When was my last "strawman" deployed, anyways?

You've been acting like a troll for some time now. I keep telling you, you don't need it, but it's your funeral.

I had a (rather clever) printer functionality joke that mysteriously diappeared in the "No Mandatory PS3 Install" thread. Should I have taken that as a warning? And aside from the obvious jokes, I'll admit that I'm intentionally provocative, but it's to provoke discussion, and the more reasonable people here seem to understand that. Hell, some of the time you're one of those people.

If you feel that banning me would benefit the site then it's your perogative.

Given that stunningly insightful commentary it's a wonder I don't have a boyfriend. /sarcasm

Maybe I should have been more clear when I wrote the post, but, in all honesty I didn't expect many people to ever see it.

I guess you at least deserve a passing reply Like I gave puff in the other thread: Sorry, it's not about you.

Easy there, it's not like I called you out for no reason... Here http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=500053&highlight=#500053 you seemed to not like "unnecessary" negative opinions and now you have "unnecessary" positive opinions.

Maybe if you had posted that link originally there would have been a more obvious frame of reference. Also, the negativity itself wasn't so much my point.

I thought you might like it!
Zen!

You thought wrong.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAARGH *dunt dunt*

If I only wanted to troll I'd go after Black with every post.

Who is the REAL villain here?

It's society.

Thanks for reminding me, that was an awesome zinger. And it's apparently still as true today as it was back then. I mean, look at him up there... he tasks me.

Still, I've managed to resist the temptation thus far. Say, was there more to that quote?

 

[goffy59]

I'm so very jealous that its Mac's first time playing Fallout.

 

[Pope Viper]

Sure would be cool to experience it for the first time.

Good times.

 

[Brother None]

Guess what? I still think you're way too quick to ring the strawman alarm, and that it's a really cheap, lazy defense. Don't I at least get points for not shitting up every argument with painful fucking analogies? When was my last "strawman" deployed, anyways?

This is a troll and a strawman

It is a troll because it's obviously meant to incite annoyance from other people. It is a strawman because you're trying to represent the opposition's side as if we're angered at things like printer support.

I realise you were probably joking, but let's be honest, the atmosphere here is simply not light enough for me to just let jokes like that fly without expecting flame-wars.

If you feel that banning me would benefit the site then it's your perogative.

I wish it was. But it isn't. We have rules and even admins are tied to it. If I could ban by my own discretion, Sorrow would not have lasted very long here. But he toed the line of the rules, and thus I couldn't ban him.

So even if I wanted to (I don't), I can not ban people simply because I want to.

 

[Forhekset]

i recently had a friend whom i forced Fallout upon. he claimed the same thing: "i died right away." as if that was it, game over.

Seems like everyone has a story like this...a buddy of mine who had been playing Oblivion and singing its praises tried Fallout on my recommendation and had the same reaction. "I died fighting those stupid rats and quit playing." I was like well, why don't you start over and be more careful? Create a new character if you have to. I don't think he ever picked the game back up, but this is a Halo/Oblivion fan, so....

One of his major complaints about turn-based RPGs is that they don't let you get directly involved in the "action" of battle. Action = button-mashing, I suppose.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

i don't even GET twitch gaming. i mean...i get it enough to be slightly amused for a few minutes. but how the hell did that become the style of gaming that the world suddenly bowed down to?

people are so used to games getting the business done for them...that they play something from a few years ago that doesn't spell anything out for you and the "oh noes!!!" arms fly into the air and it's run back home to Mommy and Oblivion (ad nauseum).

 

[Mac]

i don't even GET twitch gaming. i mean...i get it enough to be slightly amused for a few minutes. but how the hell did that become the style of gaming that the world suddenly bowed down to?

I know that, on my part, a lot of it has to do with me liking to be in the action, and with turn-based I never feel like I am (aside from the fact that I just suck at strategy). Also, as silly as it seems, I think about it in terms of "If I were really in that situation, would only get a certain amount of moves, then have to stop and wait for the other guy?" The answer is "Of course not". I've always hated the idea of sitting and allowing other characters to hit my character when I feel like I should at least be able to defend myself in real-time.

And you really shouldn't underestimate some button-mashers; they have their own strategies depending on which game you are playing.

As for my playing of Fallout, I'm enjoying myself. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what strategy works best for me when it comes to combat, but I'm really starting to love this game (and it hasn't even been very long). I wish I was better at playing it, but I'm sure that will come in time.

 

[sah]

I remember my first character in FO2 was pretty awful. I envisioned him as a ninja sort of guy, but then changed my mind at least few times. It was my best cRPG experience to date.

Maybe you could tell us what kind of character do you have and how you solve problems in the game world, I'm sure we'll come up with some tips.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

I know that, on my part, a lot of it has to do with me liking to be in the action, and with turn-based I never feel like I am (aside from the fact that I just suck at strategy). Also, as silly as it seems, I think about it in terms of "If I were really in that situation, would only get a certain amount of moves, then have to stop and wait for the other guy?" The answer is "Of course not". I've always hated the idea of sitting and allowing other characters to hit my character when I feel like I should at least be able to defend myself in real-time.

Turn-based combat is designed to be representative of the character's skill and ability without forcing the player to perform any complicated maneuvers. Personally I find it to be a whole lot more sensible than in many real time games where in the cutscenes my character seems to be omniscient and capable of backflipping over lasers yet when one zombie gets behind me with an axe I have to clumsily mash buttons to get him to turn around so I can shoot said zombie in the face.

And you really shouldn't underestimate some button-mashers; they have their own strategies depending on which game you are playing.

True, my buddy used to play nothing but Street Fighter II all day long. Eventually I got sick of getting my ass handed to me so I challenged him to a few rounds of Command and Conquer. I beat him the first round but once he figured out all of the quick-commands and unit abilities he plowed right through me.

As for my playing of Fallout, I'm enjoying myself. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what strategy works best for me when it comes to combat, but I'm really starting to love this game (and it hasn't even been very long). I wish I was better at playing it, but I'm sure that will come in time.

You'll get to the top of the learning curve soon enough. You might still catch an unlucky critical every now and then, but that's just part of the fun.[/quote]

 

[Forhekset]

i don't even GET twitch gaming. i mean...i get it enough to be slightly amused for a few minutes. but how the hell did that become the style of gaming that the world suddenly bowed down to?

I like quite a few "action RPGs", but I also love turn-based strategy games/RPGs. There's room in the world for both. I just don't get the argument that "turn-based games don't immerse me in the action". Though I enjoy some of them, the real-time combat in many action RPGs feels chaotic, sloppy, and at times like the game is being played for you.

 

[whirlingdervish]

I really love some forms of realtime action, but quite often I feel that games that are all realtime action (a lot of the newer ones fall into this category) were either designed poorly in the first place, or haven't been tuned to the point that the characters movements feel "right" or even practicle in heavy combat.

For instance, consider Quake 3..

It has almost all of the same mechanics as quake 2 and quake 4, but the speed is not there and the movement is quite shoddy by comparison to the smooth feel of either of the even numbered installments in the series.

I'm a quake whore and I yet can't even bring myself to play Q3 seriously, due to this failing of the realtime combat system's physics and the characters inability to move within that framework in an effective manner.

If it's done well, and tuned to perfection, I can play an FPS game for uncounted hours.

If it's done poorly, I might play it for an hour and shelf it, because all of the challenge lies in trying to wrestle your player character into doing the most basic of actions, instead of trying to outwit your opponents.


On this note, if Fallout 3's FPS style action was intelligently designed and tuned to the needs of a competitive gamer, I would have a lot fewer bad things to say about it.

As it stands tho, from what I've seen and heard, neither the RTwP or the stat-influenced FPS mode of FO3's combat are well thought out or designed correctly for hours of challenging gameplay.

(if it's FPS I expect to not miss what I'm aiming at, and in RTwP I better be able to perform actions other than shooting and watching a cutscene of my bullet hitting)

Maybe the e3 videos will change my mind when I see it in action, as this will allow us to make comparisons to other games that had done these types of combat well.

(I'd rather FEEL it in action thru a demo, but I'll settle for whatever we get)

 

[Mac]

I just don't get the argument that "turn-based games don't immerse me in the action". Though I enjoy some of them, the real-time combat in many action RPGs feels chaotic, sloppy, and at times like the game is being played for you.

I think this is where we differ. I feel like I have a lot more control over the outcome of combat in RT, whereas TB feels like it's being played for me: Choose action from a list, watch action happen, wait until opponent does same, repeat until one of you is dead.

Granted, I've played a lot of RT games with terrible controls, then there are games like Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time that prove some games have very, very good controls.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

well, the thing is this...(as i see it):

before the world was consolized many of the crpgs made for the pc were emulating the old pen and paper style of roleplaying.

you strategize, then roll the die. that is pretty much what is going on with your turn-based combat here. you come up with plans based on your limitations or assets and roll your die, taking your chances.

half the time real-time crpg's are doing all of the damn work for you via computer and nothing could be more boring than hack n' slash to me. i guess i'm just old school that way.

 

[JR Jansen]

I think this is where we differ. I feel like I have a lot more control over the outcome of combat in RT, whereas TB feels like it's being played for me: Choose action from a list, watch action happen, wait until opponent does same, repeat until one of you is dead.

Well, this discussion boils down to 'player skills' VS 'character skills'. RT games focus more on the players skill whereas TB games focus more on the characters skills. For an RPG, both can exist as we've seen in games, but in an RPG, it's not you that are influencing the world. It's your character and therefor it should be it's abilities that influence the world not the players. The player is the one that makes the decisions but it's the character that has to act them out. Therefor it makes more sense, to me anyway, that RPG's have TB combat.

 

[Mac]

I get what you're saying. A lot of it is where you started and what you grew up with.

At risk of destroying what little geek cred I have, I first played D&D about two years ago.

Most of my early gaming was on consoles and even the games I played on the computer didn't (and still don't) feel right being played with a mouse and keyboard.

 

[Starseeker]

So, would some of you term all these new Action RPGs, "Action Adventure" instead?

Does RPGs comes down to whether or not you are role playing yourself or an actual character that doesn't exist in real world to influence the game world?

If that's the argument/direction we are going given this sounds like an attempt to farther realism, are we doomed to play RPG simulators in the future?

 

[Forhekset]

I just don't get the argument that "turn-based games don't immerse me in the action". Though I enjoy some of them, the real-time combat in many action RPGs feels chaotic, sloppy, and at times like the game is being played for you.

I think this is where we differ. I feel like I have a lot more control over the outcome of combat in RT, whereas TB feels like it's being played for me: Choose action from a list, watch action happen, wait until opponent does same, repeat until one of you is dead.

Granted, I've played a lot of RT games with terrible controls, then there are games like Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time that prove some games have very, very good controls.

It's just different tastes, really. I think in RPGs, quite often pure RT combat feels chaotic, and I actually feel like I have less control (strictly speaking about real-time combat in RPGs, not straight action games like Devil May Cry, God of War or what have you). Many times the combat boils down to pausing every few seconds and issuing commands or healing or choosing magic etc. anyway. Interrupts the flow of things if you're really after a pure action experience.

On the other hand, when I have time to carefully plan my actions and use a little bit of "stragedy", I feel supremely in control. Like someone else mentioned, one method relies on the player's skill at twitch gaming, the other relies on strategy and character skill.

 

[JR Jansen]

So, would some of you term all these new Action RPGs, "Action Adventure" instead?

Does RPGs comes down to whether or not you are role playing yourself or an actual character that doesn't exist in real world to influence the game world?

If that's the argument/direction we are going given this sounds like an attempt to farther realism, are we doomed to play RPG simulators in the future?

Ugh, good question. I don't have anything agains action RPG's per sé, just that they are a different form of RPG. Both can exist. The problem we are having is that Fallout 3 (it being a sequel) shouldn't be an action RPG because if's predecessors weren't action RPG's either.

What really pisses me of is that people sometimes throw games from another category in to the RPG genre. I once looked horns with someone who said that Half life was an RPG because you play a role. Iow, you control the character and play out the role of that character. Said state of affairs, i know.

 

[Mac]

What really pisses me of is that people sometimes throw games from another category in to the RPG genre. I once looked horns with someone who said that Half life was an RPG because you play a role. Iow, you control the character and play out the role of that character. Said state of affairs, i know.

Even I know Half Life is not an RPG, its an FPS. I would have thought that was obvious from the fact that you shoot things. A lot.