Impressions thread for positive impressions

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by midshipman01, Nov 12, 2008.

  1. midshipman01

    midshipman01 First time out of the vault

    15
    Nov 12, 2008
    Hi everyone, obviously new here if you check the post count. I have been checking out the board, and specifically this subforum, for a few days now. I've got to say that you all are definitely up to snuff with your Fallout trivia, but your nostalgia for the original titles has really jaded the general outlook of Fallout 3 on this board. Here is how things really are...


    The biggest complaint I'm noticing is that the story lacks some...I dunno, pizazz. I can get on board with that for the most part, it definitely could have been more enticing along the way and more profound at the end. The real problem, however, is not that Fallout 3's story was weak. Many, many games, movies, and books have worse. The real problem, on this forum, is that the story is no longer told through miles and miles of text. Picture yourself as a writer. You have 2 games sitting in front of you. One full of static screens with text boxes just waiting to be amassed, and another with live action segments of realistic conversation length. It seems obvious to me that the static game will lend itself to a healthy, developed story line because I can write a friggin book if I want to. I can write paragraphs about specific armor types in the inventory screen, or take characters on a whirlwind 20 minute dialogue that would never actually take place.

    The real kicker here, is that no matter how much more content I add to this static box pile, it WILL NEVER BE BETTER than the live action title. Watching a character's facial and hand expressions will always create a more immersive storyline than a picture of their face next to text. Watching my character pull his arm up to view the pip boy, and viewing all in-game information in that format, will always be more immersive than leaving the game to reach a Pip Boy menu screen. I'm sorry to say it, but nostalgia is not a good enough reason to deny this. You may have quite liked the story development of F1 and 2, but a third game that mimics those story development tactics would be a step backwards, or at least sideways, for gaming. Especially RPG gaming, where immersion is paramount. In 1997, this was the only way to achieve a vast game experience. Now, that is not the case and I doubt that format would have been chosen today. It's archaic, unwieldy, and has been done infinitely better by a 99c used paperback.


    The combat seems to be another point of interest for Fallout 3 flaming, and honestly a rebuttal to that does not require much from me. Here goes. "Please.". That's it. Done. Please tell me in what way turn based combat is advantageous over VATS or live action combat. It doesn't look better. It isn't realistic. Some say, "it's a tactical combat system"...uh, ok. All combat systems are tactical, the only thing that changes is the tactic required. At very least, VATS is an acceptable substitute for turn based combat. At very most (and probably most correct), it takes turn based combat to the place it always wanted to go: Allowing tactical attacks, but in a real-time setting without having to leave the game and enter "fight mode". Again, this is an archaic system that has only been improved by the implementation of real time combat. Turn based is NOT immersive and I wouldn't accept an argument to the contrary. Your love for it is purely nostalgic and I know this because it offers no advantage to a well-executed real time system.


    As for "isometric view" (ooohhh ahhh!), you do realize that this was a concession made for technology's sake...right? You are sick in the head if you think Fallout 1 or 2 would EVER have been developed if that perspective if Fallout 3's 3-D sandbox were possible (Diablo 3 is not compelling evidence to the contrary). If Bethesda had retained the isometric view in 2008, it would have been an insult to consumers, but mostly Fallout fans who should have wanted to see actual improvements on the formula. No true fan would want to see the same drivel returning sequel after sequel. A series stays interesting through evolution, not rehashing.


    Which brings us to the final point. Bethesda did not fail. If anyone did fail, its you. You, who should have been most appreciative of the time and effort that is so clearly evident in every technical aspect of this game. I'm not saying it's the best game in the world. It's not. But to say that it is "depressing" or some such is doing a disservice to the series you claim to love. Look at that game world. It's massive, gorgeous, and littered with thoughtful detail in every nook and cranny. There are tons of NPC's, most of which have an entire convo tree or SET of convo trees in different situations. There are tons of weapons, tons of clothing choices, tons of random items. This is a great game. It's art. To call this a failure to the franchise is ridiculously narrow minded as is pointing to random, minor glitches as evidence that the entire game is not worth your time. This kind of whiny nitpicking is a sure fire way to NEVER receive that kind of effort again. Lucky for you, those "13 yr old Halo noobs" who love Fallout 3 (interestingly, making them more appreciative of quality gaming) have made this a success despite the hardcore fan base's blind nostalgia.
     
  2. Leon

    Leon A Smooth-Skin

    681
    Oct 10, 2008
    Nah, the real problem is that the story is confusing, contrived, derivative, and utter crap.

    Speaking of miles and miles of text, TL;DR the rest of your post.

    EDIT: Oh, after skimming over the rest and seeing a bunch of tired and fallacious arguments and a hefty sum of obviously antagonizing accusations, it seems I've gone and replied to a troll thread. Shame on me. :cry:
     
  3. midshipman01

    midshipman01 First time out of the vault

    15
    Nov 12, 2008
    I'm sorry but your post, filled with uninspired buzz words the forum has decided to rally around, has no actual substance. I have no idea what your argument is or why anyone should consider it.

    "derivative". lulz. What a worthless attempt at appearing eloquent and studied while actually saying nothing at all. Everything is derivative.
     
  4. rcorporon

    rcorporon So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
    Orderite

    Jan 31, 2008
    If you don't like reading, that's one thing. To simply say that "voice acting is better" doesn't make sense.

    Why is turn based better? It's not better than real time in any specific sense, but in FO it's better simply because it's what the original developers intended for the series.

    For the rest of your post, you need to use the "search" function here and simply read the past few years worth of items, as most of it has already been addressed.
     
  5. midshipman01

    midshipman01 First time out of the vault

    15
    Nov 12, 2008
    I believe it makes perfect sense. Like... take you and me for example. If we had this conversation in real life, I'd probably find it more immersive and realistic than the text conversation we're having right now. Likewise, even with less content, a game that tells a story through real time conversation will better simulate the living, breathing world that RPG's attempt to capture.

    I see the "intent" argument going around. While I can't say I've interview developers about their intent (I doubt anyone else has), I can rightly assume that turn based combat was the only real option they had. The graphics and game world wouldn't have supported VATS or real-time combat no matter their intent. So, I would take it a step further and assume that if there had been a better way to represent tactical combat, they would have gone with it. Viola! Bethesda created just such a system as technology allowed. It might not be perfect, but takes the tactical framework and appropriately updates it.

    Probably so. I didn't write my wall of text with the intent of breathing new life into the forum. I wrote it as a response to things that are being posted right now, today, not in the past.
     
  6. Bowyerte

    Bowyerte First time out of the vault

    50
    Oct 29, 2008
    The real question of this thread is :

    Who are you trying to convince this game is good : the NMA users, or yourself ? What does NMA users opinion matter to you, since you're a new user anyway ?

    If the game was as awesome as you said it was, surely you'd rather play it instead of posting here. I know I would.
     
  7. UncannyGarlic

    UncannyGarlic Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 6, 2008
    Stop feeding it and bring me some oil already.
     
  8. Geomancer

    Geomancer First time out of the vault

    5
    Nov 12, 2008
    I agree with you, mid, for the most part.

    Fallout 3 was not just Fallout 2 with different content, it was a whole different game. Same setting, sure, but different game play mechanics.

    I wholly enjoyed the game and played it until I was level 20.

    I did have a few disappointments, though:

    First, the game became far too easy. At the end of it, I got Fawkes who could take all the damage and kill almost everything.

    Myself, I had an almost continuous I.V. drip with stimpacks in battle since you could use any amount of them and suffer no drawbacks. And I had about five guns with hundreds of bullets, making it impossible for me to ever run out.

    The level 20 cap was annoying, making it hard to continue after you got to that point because you couldn't level up anymore and continue to expand your character.

    And, lastly, I didn't feel like I should go through it again because I was afraid all I would do is repeat the game since there are far less choices in quests.


    But all in all, it was a nice game.
     
  9. Pablosdog

    Pablosdog Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    451
    Oct 30, 2007
    yes because arbirtary dialogue, poor choice and consequence and poor writing constitues as "realistic", considering that dialogue freeze frames gamplay, your point is moot. how does reduced lines=realism? how does overacting constitute realism?

    The descriptions also described things that couldn't be explained in the game world, things like touch and smell, also, it was well written and humorous, and added flavour to the world.
    so basically, nah, nah,nah,nah,nah. :roll:
    thing is, tell me in what why fallout 3 is more tactical than fallout 2?
    When player skill takes hold over main gameplay mechanics, the fault is not in the player being too powerful but the game allowing him to be so. Point being, Fallout 3 has a very clunky and has a very easy to abuse combat system. I can abuse vats by going in close range and using a combat shotgun, over and over again. Sometimes switching out of vats I can actually do more damage blindly shooting at a enemy, and yes, 2-4 seconds of slow motion deaths are so exciting when repeated every fucking time a death animation occurs in vats. Realtime does not equal=more tactical.

    hell, and this is coming from a fps player, the realtime combat mechanics in this game are HORRIBLE.

    You never actually played fallout 1 or 2 did you?

    Again, moot point. Fallout 1 and 2 were never developed as isometric titles due to a lack of technology, fp games actually predate isometric titles by a fair length of years. So, after 4 titles of first person gameplay *cough* elder scrolls*cough* who's doing the rehasing? Some people prefer that viewpoint, so it shouldn't be a big deal having the series stay in that format.

    and considering fallout 3 was designed first AS an isometric game, where the hell do you come off thinking that isometric titles are archaic? since when is a cameraview archaic?



    Seriously, your post comes off as arrogant and inconsiderate.

    In the past indeed. You fail.[/i]
     
  10. Elandarex

    Elandarex First time out of the vault

    20
    Nov 9, 2008
    Sometimes it is just so cute watching people go on about things they obviously know nothing of. Why is it that people think that games somehow have to abandon the conventions and systems put in place by previous generations just for the sake of saying that progress has been made? How would chess be better if it was somehow made real time? After all, it's played in real life, and its far easier to make things real time there than in a virtual setting. I'll tell you why chess has remained the same, it's because real time chess is nothing more than little kids playing with their action figures making pew pew noises constantly while hammering the toys together to simulate "real-time" combat.

    People seem to be under the misconception that "revolution" is somehow better than "evolution". Going from turn based to real time fps combat in Fallout is certainly a "revolution" but it is anything but an evolution of the Fallout franchise. What most of us wanted wasn't the exact same combat system present in the original Fallouts, only the most rabid and unreasoning of fanboys want that. Instead, an improved turn based combat system, with increased options owing to new technology, and an enhanced UI owing to lessons learned is what we wanted. Turn based combat is not better or worse than FPS combat if it is done well, it is simply a different way to represent an abstracted scenario. And believe me, this supposed "realistic" combat in Fallout 3 is very abstract, or else people wouldn't be able to take 20 handgun rounds to the face and not die, regardless of the PC's stats. And therein lies the reason we want a return to turn based combat, abstract statistics do not work well in the style of combat this game contains.

    One thing people need to realize is that in the real world there are things that, when surpassed, do in fact render previous incarnations obsolete. This is the case with most forms of technology such as with computers. However, other aspects of real life, such as creative pursuits, do not somehow find themselves making older expressions useless. It would be ridiculous to say that Terry Pratchett made Shakespeare nothing more than a tired old relic, or that Citizen Kane is now nothing more than a footnote in the glory that is Hot Fuzz. Why then do we persist in saying that Turn Based combat systems (very much a creative endeavor to design and implement) are dead in the face of First Person Shooters? The original Fallout came out after Doom if you remember. The point is, advances in technology, while potentially rendering old technology as obsolete, do not affect the legitimacy of old design conventions, but they can certainly improve and update them.

    I was actually looking forward to seeing whether FP combat would improve on the Fallout feel. It didn't, so why do it?
     
  11. Josan12

    Josan12 Vault Senior Citizen

    Oct 15, 2007
    Re: This section is disheartening

    I agree NMA must seem depressing and cynical to all you new-comers brought in by FO3. I can understand that. Welcome to the forum of 'Glittering gems of hatred' :)

    The thing is, the original Fallout that NMA was built around has drawn mostly more intellectual gamers (except alec :)) that love depth, character, detail and maturity in games. FO3, although a good game in its own right, was basicly an insult to all those things.

    Well dude, whether you prefer text or pictures is just a personal preference thing. But i would point out that studies have suggested people that prefer text to pictures generally have higher IQ and a more active imagination ... but hey, it's your choice.

    There's more to gameplay than how 'immersive' it is. But i know what you mean. Interestingly, Van Buren's (Black Isles canned FO3) combat system was almost certainly going to be RT. But Boyarsky (art director of FO1&2) said that was only because most publishers said they wouldn't even consider a TB game. So it appears most people agree with you. My perfect FO3 would probably be real-time.

    The rest of your post i would consider border-line trolling so i'm not gonna respond (the point about ISO being outdated is total nonsense)

    But i understand what you mean about taking a fresh perspective on the game rather than constantly comparing it to the originals.
    When i was reading some of the NMA front page reviews of FO3 i realised that, from the perspective of someone who has never played and understood the depth and range of the original games, FO3 would seem like a good game. If i stop comparing it to the original games, i have actually found it to be a fairly decent video game. And many others have reported a similar experience on this very board. But unfortunately in order to appreciate this neutral perspective i have basicly have to pretend to be ingnorant of the quality and genius of the original games. Ahh, it's true - ignorance IS bliss. The fact is, if i could erase my memory of past video-gaming and then play FO3, i'd find myself immersed in an amazing post-apocalyptic world.

    Unfortunately the fact is that i can't erase my past experience of the many quality video games from the golden age of game development (IMO the 90's) over the last 15 years, so i am stuck with the realization that FO3 is basicly crap. Such is life ....
     
  12. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    581
    Nov 2, 2008
    Seriously, give me that link where you can apply as part of bethesdas marketing team. You must be getting paided to make up stuff like that.

    Fallout 3 has no combat at all. You leave the vault and you can kill supermutants, raiders and basically everything. I even managed to kill a deathclaw with my 10mm pistole. Thats just plain stupid and nothing, yes absolutly nothing, can excuse that. The games combatsystem is just pure shit, possible beyond repair.
     
  13. Ausdoerrt

    Ausdoerrt I should set a custom tit

    Oct 28, 2008
    Re: This section is disheartening

    Go tell that to Final Fantasy Tactics fans and see what happens =) Same goes for people, not much unlike me, who spent hours and hours on TOEE, Fallouts, Final Fantasy and many many more games.

    "I won't accept that argument" said the Inquisition employee and burned Kopernik.

    Yeah, and Spiderman beats Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Shakespeare by a mile. Just because it's soooo immersive, and the story is so well-told. It's live action!!

    ;;;;

    Get real man.
     
  14. baronjohn

    baronjohn First time out of the vault

    9
    Nov 3, 2008
    retard Bethesda faces
    halfassed character animations
    clipping issues
    huge AI issues
    magic bag of holding pants
    ridiculous dialogues
    ridiculous quests
    a wasteland the size of my Hyde Park where everything's a 5 minute walk away
    "Cities" that contain 10 people each, half of whom are merchants and the other half named "City settler"
    house with a floating robo butler
    raiders decorating their all of their places with dismembered corpses
    "Welcome to our city. I like you already. Can you disarm our nuke?"
    invincible children
    teleporting through doors
    blowing off heads/arms/legs with single 10mm shots
    shooting unarmored highlevel npcs in the head with a shotgun just makes them angry
    pipboy/dialogues freezes time
    time flows much faster for the our character in VATS
    only 10% damage taken in VATS
    .........

    Fallout 3 sure is immersive.
     
  15. Per

    Per Vault Consort Staff Member Admin

    Apr 1, 2004
    Re: This section is disheartening

    TES: Daggerfall did not exist.

    It's more fun.

    Good thing you belong to the open-minded side.

    No?

    Again, Daggerfall did not exist ever.

    Hey, you get to do that?

    Haha, we failed at loving the game in spite of its qualities. Yes, that's the great continuing failure of consumers all over the world.

    Look at it!

    It. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

    Promise?
     
  16. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    581
    Nov 2, 2008
    Where can I donate so that Bethesda won't rape the Fallout franchise further?
     
  17. ScottXeno

    ScottXeno It Wandered In From the Wastes

    172
    Nov 10, 2008
    I agree with what was said about not wanting a game that was basically a clone of the first two Fallout's. Obviously we would want some updates, technology would dictate that the game mechanics would be able to be improved, and of course we would want that. But you are fooling yourself if you think that a game that was turn based, NOT because it was the only option that they had at the time, but because if you actually play the fucking game, you would realize that it was the way the developers wanted it to be, and then make it into a First Person Shooter with a VATS system that, what, creates real time with pause? I can't even consider that true real time with pause, because you don't use it all the time, and in fact don't have to use it at all. It's a first person shooter with horribly unbalanced mechanics.

    I wanted Fallout 3 to be good. I even saved my own personal judgement on the game until it came out, even though I had read these forums, and I knew what was coming, or what everyone thought was coming. And yeah, I wasn't a fan of Oblivion. I knew what was there, and still I reserved judgement until I finally sat down and played it. the dialogue, which you say is "realistic," was horrible, and anyone who thinks that it's realistic is a liar. The pages (?) of text found in Fallout 1 and 2 were well thought out, and yeah, you know what, I think that people would talk like that. Why wouldn't they? Even in Fallout 2 when certain characters had voices, didn't they talk the same as the rest? There were plenty of short responses from plenty of NPC's in both of those games. That's just an excuse that you are using to back up shitty writing. It's not even a good excuse. There is no excuse. You can't put a game out there, in any franchise, with bad writing, and then peg it with "well, that's how games are these days. It's progress." Says who?
     
  18. flyme

    flyme First time out of the vault

    13
    Nov 10, 2008
    Re: This section is disheartening

    good points, but when it comes to this...

    my focus is always on the subtitles, and never on the NPC animation. I usually read faster than how they talk, and most of the voices I find too cheesy to listen to over and over. besides, i take more in, comprehension wise, when reading as opposed to listening
     
  19. ScottXeno

    ScottXeno It Wandered In From the Wastes

    172
    Nov 10, 2008
    Also, in reply to ^


    What facial expression? Bethesda made a game with facial expressions?? Last time I checked everyone's expressions in this game were as static as, heh, text.
     
  20. Geomancer

    Geomancer First time out of the vault

    5
    Nov 12, 2008
    *sigh*

    Yeah, I know. I just like deluding myself. We played Fallout for the snarky comments and humor involved. You could find the Enterprise for the Vault's sake! Plus, if you were female, you could sleep with everyone to get costs to go down. Mostly, the change in the game made it easier not to die, a thing I did with depressing regularity in the first two games. But that was the fun in it! It was an RPG, not an FPS with RPG elements!

    I also hated how people like Walter (the mechanic in Megaton) just disappeared, leaving you with nothing. Just like the people in Big Town and the 'smoothskins' in Tenpenny Tower. I had to convince everyone and then the ghouls killed them anyway! That was really annoying.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get the sacred clothing and get the GECK, only to find it was all for naught.