Whats worse- Fallout 1 and 2 elitists or Fallout 3 fanboy kids?

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by helios1, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    That's still directly tied to the control inputs. Just the TYPE, not the number. This was the same conflict in gaming transitioning from the late 80s to the early-to-mid 90s when joysticks stopped being popular and mouses started working as intended, freeing up a hand to stay on a keyboard. Games relied more heavily on binary layouts rather than contextual inputs from the joystick (which has resurfaced to some degree thanks to controller analog sticks) and they were creative in their utility due to the limitations of those inputs being binary, yet so potentially numerous. Nowadays controllers do offer a few things that the keyboard and mouse do not (namely pressure-sensitivity inputs), but the major difference is still the number of inputs. The kinds of inputs don't have nearly as much of an impact, though they do HAVE an impact, as you expressed.
     
  2. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Antediluvian as Feck

    Nov 26, 2007
    Personally? Minigames are fun; but I don't care for them in RPGs if they affect the outcome for the PC. The whole point of a PC is that they are the ones in the situation, and the game should reflect only what they could actually accomplish in the situation. Take the Witcher(2)'s arm wrestling minigame for instance, and compare it to arm wrestling Francis in Fallout 2. The outcome in Witcher depends on the player directly ~irrespective of Geralt, his abilities, perhaps even whether or not he's drunk... and most importantly, it's not Geralts timing and does not [logically] include any bar tricks, intimidation, incantations or potion effects Geralt would of course have encountered and been able to use... It means that Geralt is hamstrung by the player if they cannot win at the minigame. :evil:

    And with Francis... The PC only wins if they actually could; by hook or by crook. This is how RPGs [specifically] should work.

    ** This is a big part of why I do not like Oblivion/FO3/Skyrim's lockpick minigame; the PC is dependent upon the player to do what might logically be trivial to them; or might logically be over their heads ~but they succeed anyway... with help; while alone. Meaning that it should not matter if the player is a professional locksmith by trade... if the PC knows nothing of locks, they should not be reliably opening them with picks.

    (In an RPG, I'd prefer the method used in Vampire:Bloodlines)
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  3. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Well naturally these minigames wouldn't IGNORE player stats. For example, if you're doing a repair minigame, it will be REALLY hard if your Repair Skill is real low, and considerably easier if it's been maxed out. I liked BOTH different approaches to Speech Checks between FO3 and FONV, but I would have preferred that they be combined. That is, if someone needs to be convinced of something, you need a MINIMUM of x in Speech, and from there it's all up to luck if you convince them, but the probability of success is greater the higher your Speech is. In short, you can't convince ANYONE if your speech doesn't meet the minimum, and it won't succeed every time even if it's maxed.

    I wanted that same logic applied to the lockpicking minigame by AT LEAST sharply narrowing the area you had to pick for success if your Skill was too low, and increasing the area if your Skill was much higher relative to the difficulty of the lock. That way, even if the Lock was a 100/100 to pick, and your Lockpick Skill was only 20, you wouldn't be prohibited from attempting it, but you WOULD fail almost guaranteed, and lose a handful of picks (also I hate when Skill Checks are visible, so you wouldn't KNOW how difficult the lock is... you'd just attempt it and give up eventually if you'd keep failing). That wouldn't quite curtail the entire dilemma of a PC who by all rights should be COMPLETELY puzzled by what to do, because they'd still have engaged in the minigame, which essentially displays that the character knows to put a pick in here and apply a screwdriver there. But at least it would still impact your success sharply if your Skill was too low, regardless of how adept you the player are at the minigame itself.

    I just prefer that quests and tasks offer more than simply clicking on something and acquiring instant success. I agree that the game should reflect the CHARACTER'S abilities more than the player's own skills (thus my unending disdain for the real-time shooter mechanics that ignore your weapons Skills), but I think that still leaves room for some form of minigames that spice things up a bit.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  4. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Antediluvian as Feck

    Nov 26, 2007
    I don't like visible skill checks either... Technically any hidden traps should be invisible without a stat check (or two)... but that's pretty awkward in FPP; I would have it be that way... but I can understand the case against it.

    I really dislike mini-games with referenced difficulty, where the core task changes according to whatever the character's skill is ~it still has the PC being dependent upon the player's [possibly inept] efforts... So an expert lock-picker could be stopped cold by the player's inability to succeed at the minigame... Something that the PC should have breezed passed without hindrance if they were a skilled professional.

    It's actually the same problem in Witcher 2 ~but not in Witcher 1; where Geralt is a reasonably good sword fighter, yet an inept player can make him an oaf swinging at trees instead of the thugs to his left or right... An RPG is "how would they behave in the moment" ~and Geralt would never behave that way... Imagine if that kind of antics were in one of the official cutscenes? (No one would accept it there, why should it be accepted at all?)

    ** As for lockpick minigames ~aside from not liking them~ I have suggested a few times that if they must be there... that the PC be the window into the world; and as such, give the player only what the PC knows ~to work with. So if the PC is a novice, let them try to pick a functional lock while just looking at what the PC would see (the key hole). But as the PC's skill is developed, let the payer see what the PC can presumably visualize; an expert locksmith can almost imagine the internals of the lock while they are picking it... So as the skill increases, reveal more of what's going on inside of the lock (like a fog of war inside the lock).

    lock4.gif
    *Animated. It seems that the image has to be clicked to see the point of it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2014
  5. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    You make a fair point about the player's potential INEPTITUDE limiting a PC that otherwise shouldn't be so restricted, which I hadn't considered. I was simply considering PLAYERS being artificially limited by their PC's stats, not the equally possible likelihood of PCs being limited by their player's deficiencies... For me that's like the hacking minigame, which was always tedious and difficult for me because of how my brain processes words. That is to say, sluggishly and poorly. So word puzzles always stop me cold, and that's all the hacking minigame was. I could effortlessly pick any locks without breaking any pins, but I'd have to back out and restart hacks potentially dozens of times regardless of the "difficulty" because my own personal difficulty with the task, despite the fact my character shouldn't have been so held back. >.<

    I do still feel that, approached properly, minigames have their place even in RPGs, and to that end I loved your suggestion about the dynamically evolving lockpicking minigame, where the player could see more of what their character could "visualize" depending on their skill.
     
  6. Kmag94

    Kmag94 First time out of the vault

    4
    Jun 4, 2014
    I'm a fan of pretty much all the Fallout games, even Tactics, never played BOS but it looked terrible. And I can tell you that I did enjoy playing Fallout 3, it just had a lot of problems. The dumb copy-pasted plot, the horribly written dialogue and characters and the linearity of D.C. But the biggest problem I had with Fallout 3 was how the BOS and The Enclave, managed to trek over 2000 miles! I mean it's understandable in Tactics where the BOS makes it to Chicago in Airstrips, but The Enclave were on it's last legs, sure they had Vertibirds, but those still needed refueling stations, which were mostly destroyed. And the Enclave didn't have many other bases, because they said they had to set up at Raven Rock, so they couldn't have possibly gotten there without all dieing. The gameplay of Fallout 3 is also basically Oblivion with guns, so that's pretty painful to play through. Really there's a lot of other dumb things about Fallout 3, but I still enjoyed playing through it, but it wasn't what a Fallout game was about, as in society rebuilding hundreds of years after a Nuclear War. Fallout 3 felt like people fighting decades after a Nuclear war.
     
  7. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Had a minor thought and figured it might shine some light on the gamer elitism debate.

    For me, elitism is a byproduct of the original gamers of the 80s getting crapped on and called nerds/geeks/losers/etc. Now the johnny come latelies think they know everything there is about gaming when a lot are mostly casual gamers. This is mostly evident when reviewers, who claim they are gamers, are more like sellouts who would write anything for the almighty dollar.

    Also, a gamer 'elitist', to me, are the rabid fans who debate about nerd stuff most 'normies', think of as absurd or retarded. These in-depth discussions, although silly sounding, often contribute to better game mechanics and game evolution overall. With mainstream gaming, the opposite has happened.

    Old school gamers are the same way, explaining how the BoS would NEVER, expend ANY resources, to expel those who dis-agreed with their beliefs. A prime example is The Glow expedition. Even though the offending members were able to make use of equipment, their still was a slight chance at the mission being successful. A: Why risk civil war when you can at best, allow the offenders to leave, come back, and provide the order with more tech. or B: If they die, then, as another post has explained, The Glow was turned into a boogeyman story and justified excuse at the folly of now following the code.

    The same with how Harold would make it over to the east coast which is ridiculous. The guy, not only an old man/ghoul, never had proper military training and would more realistically have settled in NCR than go on some suicide mission across the country. The fact that one faction would debate/explain these things and the other side simply 'lapping' it up, in my mind shows a clear difference.

    Honestly, Beth wanted money period, from both old school fans and new fans alike. To say their half-assed attempt at bringing back old lore as an altruistic gesture is not very believeable. Its ironic how, considering their ability to write books in their game worlds, Beth had such a problem writing for F3.

    Although I do not condone personal attacks unless by defense, it is perfectly understandable how certain segments of the gaming population have felt snubbed when chuckleheads like snoopdog and other celebrities claim to be gamers when they are much more gangsta/pimpin/weed fiend/ than gamer. The truth is, the casual/mainstream gaming scene has completely reshaped the videogame landscape. Games have followed the examples of hollywood blockbusters. We need a story that offends nobody, which essentially makes it hollow, while using gobbles of special effects as the new attractor. Problem is, the special effects and marketing are expensive, so they have to get more and more outlandish while budgets explode to continue the fucked up cycle. This further requires even MORE people to buy in. Really reminds of the snake eating its own tail. To ignore this or blame it on elitism is folly at best.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  8. Super Mutant

    Super Mutant The Superest of Mutants

    45
    Apr 13, 2015
    Both can be equally as awful
     
  9. JackTheImmortal

    JackTheImmortal Prophet of the Elder Gods

    3
    May 1, 2015
    Because people don't like change and no matter what you tell them they'll always think they are right and you are wrong. Personally, I think that the Old Fallout Elitists are worse becuase they just won't be happy no matter what Bethesda does. While I do enjoy the first two, I honestly prefer Fallout 3 and New Vegas because they reinvigorated the series. Yes Fallout 3 isn't perfect. but it is still a good game.
     
  10. Zerginfestor

    Zerginfestor dear god, the scrapping

    405
    Apr 18, 2015
    What? That's ridiculous, old-schoolers 'elitists' can easily be happy with Bethesda's actions. I mean look at NV! They said "FUCK IT!" and threw it at Obsidian! :grin: good move from Bethesda ;)
    Honestly though, if Bethesda actually gave a damn on the lore and 'choices', I'm pretty sure some of us would give them a nod at...too bad that's very unlikely to happen.
     
  11. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Antediluvian as Feck

    Nov 26, 2007
    Most (but not all) of the books in TES come from the earlier games, and the company had different people then. For FO3, the Bethesda spokesman actually said [publicly] that the writing
    was not a battle they wanted to pick.

    This is bogus.
    The old Fallout's were better Fallout's than FO3 because FO3 wasn't anything like Fallout. It shouldn't matter if FO3 was even unanimously hailed as a better game... it's not mechanically or philosophically a Fallout game; it doesn't share the priorities of one.

    People too often tut-tut others about not accepting change, while ignoring that the changes [and their stated position] are sometimes tantamount to swapping out a hammer for a wrench, and then patronizing the user's lament at the loss of the smooth ability to sink nails. Bethesda could have done a fantastic job ~they didn't want to; their market was not the Fallout fanbase. They bought out the old-time country store with the intent of installing a quikie-mart under the same sign and facade. You cannot play the Fallout series experience in FO3; in FO3 you play the TES series experience.. dressed up like the Fallout setting. That kind of change we don't need. If they'd have left well enough alone, we'd have already gotten a proper Fallout 3 from either Troika/Obsidian/ or InXile.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2015
  12. Robb Stark

    Robb Stark Wasteland Survivor

    33
    May 12, 2015
    Want my opinion?

    Stop taking it too far, let people enjoy what they want and accept what people enjoy. Its a dick move to consider anyone NOT a fallout fan just because they liked 3 or New Vegas, but then again newer fans can be dicks too.

    It be better if more of us got along imo...
     
  13. Vault11

    Vault11 Banned

    37
    May 23, 2015
    I would say Fallout 3 fanboys are worse. Sure, the 1&2 elitists can be a little grating at times, and their "if it's not isometric it's not actually Fallout" claim is tenuous at best, but I think the people who proclaim 3 as the best (even though New Vegas is objectively better) when they haven't even played the originals are simply uninformed and their opinion has zero veracity.

    That said, Fallout 3 is decent enough given the genre switch but it isn't the holy grail of RPGs, and nowhere near as good as FO1 and New Vegas in terms of... well, everything.
     
  14. Super Mutant

    Super Mutant The Superest of Mutants

    45
    Apr 13, 2015
    In my opinion FO3 is actually better than New Vegas. I enjoy it much more.
     
  15. The Dutch Ghost

    The Dutch Ghost Grouchy old man of NMA Moderator

    Jan 11, 2004
    Well having an opinion is no crime, but please don't state it is a fact.
     
  16. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    The original Fanboys are worse but not that much. The f3 fanboys are usually not as bad but they are way more so it kinda evens out. It depends on quality or quantity fanboyism :P

    Nv is better in most parts. The only thing i prefer from F3 is the world/area/exporation.. But even so that does not fit with the lore/time line. If they made it so the game was around F1 it would have been better.

    Seems like a lot of the F1-2 fanboys havent played F3 either of if they have they quit quite fast.. So that goes both ways.
     
  17. Robb Stark

    Robb Stark Wasteland Survivor

    33
    May 12, 2015
    I find it odd how people assume this forum is filled with 1-2 fanboys when generally people tend to be more open minded to FO3. Not saying there aren't fanboys just saying the stereotype is weird.
     
  18. Vault11

    Vault11 Banned

    37
    May 23, 2015
    I'm not going to lie; I tried to start up Fallout 3 about 6-7 times, and I only lasted a few hours before I quit from sheer boredom and disgust. Only when I got my PC and modded it out the ass was it anything close to tolerable, and even then I rushed the gameplay and have never played again since I finished. New Vegas, on the other hand... maybe 400 hours put into it. The originals are getting close to that. Go figure.
     
  19. naossano

    naossano So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 19, 2006
    You guys should spend some time in Fo3 fans communities to see the kind of guys you would be dealing with.
    Not all of them are awfull, but some of them are quite unbelievable.
     
  20. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    A lot of people here are unbelivable aswell so it evens out :P