Duck and Cover Forum Index


Use these links, buy stuff from Amazon and help us out, nubs.
Amazon.com | Amazon.ca | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de
  Duck and Cover  •  FAQ  •  Search  •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile  •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 Support DAC!
 Fallout with Swords View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topicReply to topic
Poll :: Being experientially unaware of Oblivion is a(n) ....

Advantage
50%
 50%  [ 13 ]
Disadvantage
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
You are most certainly a homosexual
46%
 46%  [ 12 ]
Total Votes : 26


Author Message
Macky
Vault Dweller
Vault Dweller


Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 139
Location: The Wasteland

PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:32 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Not that anyone ever cared to ask but I arrived on these boards some time ago out of my love for Fallout... but not PC gaming or RPGs. The Fallout series were the only computer games I ever played: I introduced a friend to Resident Evil on the PS, he introduced me to what became a life-long obsession. Then we sucked each other off to seal the deal. Now that man has become a moderator here at DAC.

Having that said, my interest in Fallout is drastically different than most of you shut-ins here. Having little to no experience with most other titles, but tons of experience with Fallout 1, 2 and tactics (never played BOS for obvious reasons). Point is, I've never played Oblivion and never would because....isn't that shit about dragons and spells and shit? Jesus Christ why would I ever play that?

To my surprise everyone at DAC and NMA seem to have extensive experiential knowledge of Oblivion and I reserve any judgments because like I said, I understand that most of you here have stayed in the community so long because you are stimulated by the genre in its entirety, not just the best series in the genre.

My question is simple; I don't know what Oblivion is like, so I wouldn't know what Oblivion with guns would be like either. I then thought that this places me at a potential advantage for Fallout 3's experience as it won't remind me of a variation of dragon excrement on the 360 that came out a while back. The altogether new experience of the Fallout universe may thus carry less negative judgments by me because, as far as I'm concerned, it's a completely fresh take on it. In any case, it can never be 'Oblivion with guns' for me because I have no frame of reference and I think that sets me up for not being as disappointed as some of you.



HARD COCK
View user's profileSend private message
Smiley
Righteous Subjugator
Righteous Subjugator


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 3187
Location: Denmark. Smiley-land.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:14 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Quote:

To my surprise everyone at DAC and NMA seem to have extensive experiential knowledge of Oblivion


Because despite the obvious initial previews and predictions, it looked like it could have potential to be an immersive and at least interesting RPG.
Despite what most say, the allure of a good old sword and dragon RPG is not something everyone scoffs at, even here.

I'm only now beginning to realise how small some people of the Fallout community truly are, because they're so bored out of their skulls that they need to have something to piss on both before and after whatever their target is, has been made.
Oblivion was a ripe target for that.

Having said that, not everyone knows about it, just what they've heard being repeated again and again. (soil erosion LOL. To this date I still don't know what it is, and I own the game =/ )


I don't remember how long ago we heard that Beth was making Fallout 3, but I think it was during or after oblivion development. That might very well have sparked the negative interest in the game.

Quote:
isn't that shit about dragons and spells and shit? Jesus Christ why would I ever play that?

Oblivion with Guns doesn't have anything to do with dragons or magic.
(even though fallout takes mutation to the point of fantastic changes)
What people mean is, that there isn't an RPG experience to be had, just really bad shoot-em-up gameplay.

The reason people call it Oblivion with guns, is firstly because of the camera angle.
1st/3rd person gameplay(isn't Fo3 over-the-shoulder though? not much difference in my opinion).

Second, it also has to do with the poor dialogue and storyline that we saw in Oblivion, that has obviously been carried over to Fallout 3.
In Oblivion, the dialogue was pretty much horrible, with virtually no difference in what you said. There was no wit in the responses, no difference based on your character and no wit in the NPC's response either.

Combat, as said, has gone from a game of turnbased strategy and prediction to hack'n'slash/FPS shooter mode.

Another subject that's been a great source of worry, is the leveling system. In Oblivion everything rose in difficulty as you leveled, but everything also stayed appropriately low so that you wouldn't wander into a castle and get ripped to shreds, because you weren't supposed to go there yet.

In THEORY it was a good system because you're supposed to go off and explore the world. Instead it made the whole game a very mediocre game experience.
This also resulted in you being able to finish the game in virtually no time, since all end-game was also keyed to your level.


Another worry is that both Morrowind and Oblivion were console hybrid games. Somewhere between the two, Deus Ex 2: Invisible War had also been ported to the consoles... Since then, Bioshock.

In each of these examples, the complexity has been diminished a LOT. All of the PC's strengths have been removed in favor of easy gamepad gameplay.

Primarily, that meant the loss of a inventory system, reduced amound of terrain and generally less space to work with for the game itself, since it had to fit on a DVD and later HDDVD/BLU-RAY.

Oblivion lost a lot of textures and mashed the remaining ones into blobby ugly parts of a single texture, with technology that made the texture on the go. So when you create your character, you simply add hues to the skin that imitate hair or beard... suffice to say, it looks ugly as fuck.


Rant.
There's been some discussion of the loss of an inventory system, whether it's a good idea or not. This branches out into "reality" discussions, and all of it is so subjective and opinionised that it's hard to sort the bullshit from good points.

In System Shock and Deus Ex you had inventory slots to store your weapons, mission items, ammo/health and so on. You had to choose what to bring and what to drop due to item size. Morrowind/Oblivion/Fallout were based on weight, while STALKER since then uses both I think.

FarCry/Crysis being a console example, just leaves you a few slots for weapons.

In Fallout the limited weight was just fine. In stalker it was an extra depth of "use it or lose it" to press the point that you should only carry what you need(too bad that there was a pre-limit that destroyed any possibility of moving and/or fucked your stamina). Ironically the same type of system allows you to carry a shitload of bazookas, even though you have nowhere to place them, but because you have the slots and weight limit for it. icon_confused2


I think I hit it all pretty much on the head.
Anything I missed?
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
St. Toxic
Haha you're still not there yet
Haha you're still not there yet


Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 3382
Location: One-man religion.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:22 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Macky wrote:
Then we sucked each other off to seal the deal. Now that man has become a moderator here at DAC.


That part is true for every mod here at DAC, but it was supposed to be kept a secret goddamnit. gnasher

Macky wrote:
Having that said, my interest in Fallout is drastically different than most of you shut-ins here. Having little to no experience with most other titles, but tons of experience with Fallout 1, 2 and tactics (never played BOS for obvious reasons). Point is, I've never played Oblivion and never would because....isn't that shit about dragons and spells and shit? Jesus Christ why would I ever play that? To my surprise everyone at DAC and NMA seem to have extensive experiential knowledge of Oblivion


Well, back when the whole Beth-drama started, there was a statement, made by Beth (I'm thinking Todd) that got every die-hard (and even some casuals) Fallout fan out there to go rabid with rage. That would be the "We're not suddenly going to do an isometric viewpoint with turn-based combat, because that's not what we do best." statement, which carried alot of weight since that's the first thing you notice when taking a brief look at Fallout; sort of the meat'n'potatoes of the series. A developer that isn't prepared to adapt to an established series, and instead insisting on adapting the series to their own personal (mal)practices couldn't really be serious about making a spiritual sequel? Could they?

So obviously, once Beth had shut themselves in and stopped doing their stupid in public (at least for a while) the importance of seeing what "Bethesda does best" became an obvious factor in any serious attempt to judge the potential of the future Fallout spin-off title. Morrowind was hardly spot-on for the Fallout universe, and I don't think anyone noteworthy attempted to merge these two games into a structured "FO3 WILL BE AWESUM" argument; at least not prior to the release of Oblivion. Instead, the common statement both from optimists, fans of Bethesda and Bethesda themselves, was that we, as Fallout fans, were to judge Bethesda on their upcoming masterpiece "Oblivion"; this was the kill-all argument that sunk any possible complaint anyone could ever have about Fallout 3, simply because Oblivion was not yet released, and the devs were going "Trust us. You'll play Oblivion, and you'll want FO3 to happen".

Naturally, when it came out, people who weren't fans of free-form, fantasy sandbox "rpg's" gave the thing a shot, just for the reference point. I'm sure you haven't missed out on the majorly united opinions of the Fallout communities concerning Oblivion. Despite what Smiley seems to think, there was more than a sheer desire to vent and rage behind the critique that was given Oblivion. Certainly, there was a bias, especially since the future of a potential Fallout successor relied on this game delivering a good gaming experience, but Oblivion failed to deliver spectacularly, even causing numerous diehard fans of the Elder Scrolls series to throw tantrums and shake fists.

One escalating aspect was also the positive hype that the game got wherever it was introduced. All the new-fangled features that it promised were poorly executed, broken or even completely missing, in turn showing that Bethesda was better at making false claims than good games. And yet, it got full 10's everywhere. Some of the content that was cut, for no good reason at all, was later re-introduced as purchasable addons, and the critics hailed it as a message from God himself! "Look look Bethesda is supporting their game! See, other devs have stopped doing it, but Bethesda is supporting their game!"

So, anyone still uncertain of wether or not there was any hope for Fallout 3, while still maintaining some basic human intelligence, hit the jackpot upon Oblivion release. A lackluster game promoted as a gem of hope in the night, a massive pr campaign full of lies (which Beth has by this stage admitted via interviews, but has said they've 'learned from since then') just to nab the extra buck or two, and greed in public display. Bethesda took of their "scary guy in the park" coat and showed their true colors: It's ALL about the money, every little bit.

The game and the company still deserves a worse trashing than they got, simply because they're still rolling in their ill-gotten gains, and possibly planning to tart up more beloved franchises. I trash Beth not because I'm bored, but because they fucking deserve it.

Macky wrote:
I understand that most of you here have stayed in the community so long because you are stimulated by the genre in its entirety, not just the best series in the genre.


I wouldn't call the Fallout fans rpg diehards. Obviously, rpg diehards are generally huge fans of Fallout, but there's no real reason for people not to enjoy Fallout and other good games from different genres. Overall, if we're talking about DAC for instance, the interests seem mainly to hover around strategy/(action) adventure games, with the blend of fps and rpg thrown in at the sides. I doubt anyone at DAC, or even the Codex, would refuse a good game simply because it does not adhere to a preffered genre.

Macky wrote:
My question is simple; I don't know what Oblivion is like, so I wouldn't know what Oblivion with guns would be like either. I then thought that this places me at a potential advantage for Fallout 3's experience as it won't remind me of a variation of dragon excrement on the 360 that came out a while back.


That's really not the issue at hand. At all. No one is fearful of Oblivion flashbacks, or remembering how terrible that experience was; it wasn't all that terrible, it was just very forgettable. It had no life, no spark, nothing; you could basically see past the textures and the ugly faces and the bugs and plotholes and "lulz humour" and retardation, into the real core of the game, which was, in essence, a monkey-like lead developer jumping around his cage screaming "CASH COW CASH COW". People have spoken with some fondness of the TES series, possibly up to Morrowind where it apparently chose the "mass appeal" perk, not for the first time, but over all other skills. Oblivion did the same in a most spectacular manner, not really making it that horrible as a game; albeit a bit scary just as a mass of lost potential.

No, probably the fear stems more from having flashbacks from the original Fallouts, reminding you of what a good game is supposed to be like, while you're trodding around in a god-awful cardboard cut-out wasteland, doing your 59'nth fed-ex quest in a row, this time for a guy who looks Asian and speaks like an irishman cirka 1785. And I'm not even probing the game that deep with that statement. It is compared to the original Fallout's that the game becomes the most disgusting, because it in no way lives up to the greatness of the originals, or even tries to, and in fact it often takes a giant shit over some of the greatest bits from the originals for its' grand finale.

And I'm not even talking about the gameplay. Imagine that. That's just the setting.

Macky wrote:
The altogether new experience of the Fallout universe may thus carry less negative judgments by me because, as far as I'm concerned, it's a completely fresh take on it. In any case, it can never be 'Oblivion with guns' for me because I have no frame of reference and I think that sets me up for not being as disappointed as some of you.


I'd hate to see you give it a shot son. If you haven't prepped yourself up by playing a terrible knock-off of a series you have no real care about, that is Oblivion, and step into this sorry mess, you'll come out of the experience with some serious scars. There is no Fallouty goodness hidden under the layers of shit, and the only thing that can save this game for any one individual is a frontal lobotomy (many a bethfan still have the scars to show for that one) and the lack of any knowledge of the previous Fallouts. These kind of people can safely play the game, and will most likely discard it as a half-decent "Bioshock clone". The end.

Smiley wrote:
Anything I missed?


Apart from the fact that VATS has killed FO3 as an fps/hack'n'slash title, that Farcry / Crysis were not console titles, that not getting the "soil erosion" pun is entirely your own fault (it was a very hyped up feature of the Oblivion engine that effectively did nothing, much like all its' other hyped up features, and was used as the "Change topic" device for when interviewers asked intelligent questions about the game), that level scaling isn't a good "system" because it effectively removes any potential challenge and breaks immersion, that fitting a game on a dvd is not a hinderance in creating a big gameworld or an issue to be attributed to consoles (especially not when you throw bluray discs into the mix), that (in so far I know) Oblivion did not make use of procedural texturing, that cutting features such as inventory is not to be blamed on consolization but simply bad choices made during development (loads and loads of console titles have inventories what gives ogosh) and lastly, why the hell are you on about the inventory in the first place -- it's not the core of the fucking topic, and it simply does not adhere to this discussion.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailAIM AddressYahoo Messenger
Macky
Vault Dweller
Vault Dweller


Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 139
Location: The Wasteland

PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:49 am Reply with quoteBack to top

This makes a lot more sense to me now.

I read about the major Fallout promulgators like Brother None refusing to buy, play, or review Fallout 3 after a slew of disagreements with the direction of the title...and it always sounded like spoiled shit - If the experience isn't just what you wanted it to be than you have a tantrum and refuse to partake in the profits. Profits in that it is all we have as Fallout fans. But now that position seems less like a poor sport response and more like a forced outcome if you ever wanted to see an authentic and genuine attempt at developing a sequel for the series.

I have been riding this train of ignoring Oblivion because I can. I didn't know that Beth's announcement for Fallout came before the release of Oblivion. This is simply because those games are not on my radar and never will be. But it is a game changer because it decreases the distance between orcs and mutants - and I realize that this is what you all have been saying from the beginning but it is only now sinking in. Like....Bethesda creating an inconsiderate, predetermined sequel to franchise X off of engine Y.

In any case, I appreciate the serious responses because no one has ever taken the time to be real and debase my optimism on this.

Toxic, you said something about emptiness behind the NPC's and the subsequent experience of immersion... there was something about that in the F3 Review from Sweden. I guess I wouldn't understand unless I played Oblivion/Fallout3/ Bethwinddragonquest etc. but in practical terms, I don't think I understand what that really means. Having understood Bethesda's rejection of Fallout's basic gameplay principles in exchange for the FPS market....it even still leaves something left to be salvaged...right?

The emptiness. Is it that your dialogue options are so predictable and regimented that they jade you to the experience?

The Swedish reviewer acted as if persevering through the F3 journey was better than doing nothing, but that's about it. This was tied to that emptiness thing you mentioned. In an operational definition, what is it that Oblivion's 'engine' does that creates such a vapid game experience -- in terms of a concrete example?
View user's profileSend private message
Smiley
Righteous Subjugator
Righteous Subjugator


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 3187
Location: Denmark. Smiley-land.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:05 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Macky wrote:
I read about the major Fallout promulgators like Brother None refusing to buy, play, or review Fallout 3 after a slew of disagreements with the direction of the title...and it always sounded like spoiled shit - If the experience isn't just what you wanted it to be than you have a tantrum and refuse to partake in the profits. Profits in that it is all we have as Fallout fans. But now that position seems less like a poor sport response and more like a forced outcome if you ever wanted to see an authentic and genuine attempt at developing a sequel for the series.


Even if it may have been a justified response, it's also without results.
Some still stubbornly hold to this attitude, even when it's completely obvious that it has changed nothing, and will do no difference after release.

Question is, what do we have to work with?

I for one believe that new players might be interested in canon and lore of the original games, and a resparked interest in the genre and theme might encourage other titles or possible a Fo4 that might adhere to the wishes of fans, rather than Beth's own interests.

But we as a community need to mold those new fans, and keeping our distance from Fo3 like Brother None does, will not do anything, it's only counterproductive and will further make us look like shut-ins.

Think about how hard it was to get the point that Toxic made.
He had to edit his posts 2 times because he's been more obsessed with my response, than gving you a clear picture. If hadn't shoved it in his face, all that would remain would be the prevous spiteful comment he previously posted.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
VasikkA
No more Tuna
No more Tuna


Joined: 15 Jun 2002
Posts: 8711

PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:13 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Smiley wrote:
I for one believe that new players might be interested in canon and lore of the original games, and a resparked interest in the genre and theme might encourage other titles or possible a Fo4 that might adhere to the wishes of fans, rather than Beth's own interests.

Just like Oblivion adhered to the wishes of TES fans? And that was their own franchise. You're free to believe what you will, but I for one belive that Fallout 4 will be the cash cow of the century.

Quote:
Some still stubbornly hold to this attitude, even when it's completely obvious that it has changed nothing, and will do no difference after release.

The same applies to you.
View user's profileSend private message
Smiley
Righteous Subjugator
Righteous Subjugator


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 3187
Location: Denmark. Smiley-land.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:45 am Reply with quoteBack to top

VasikkA wrote:

Just like Oblivion adhered to the wishes of TES fans? And that was their own franchise. You're free to believe what you will, but I for one belive that Fallout 4 will be the cash cow of the century.


That's the likely outcome. Of course you welcome to take on a defeatist attitude and do nothing about it.

Quote:
The same applies to you.


Hardly, as one has had results, and the other has not had a chance yet, since we haven't seen the flow of Fo3 fans yet.
That's a farly large difference.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteAIM Address
Stainless
Living Legend
Living Legend


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 3035
Location: Melbourne, Futureland

PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:09 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Quote:
The emptiness. Is it that your dialogue options are so predictable and regimented that they jade you to the experience?


To give a good example, Oblivion had... 3 or 4 voice actors each for both sexes. These weren't voices that were assigned to characters, but rather randomly assigned. So one moment you'll talk to a begger women who opens with the voice of an old crone, then when you ask her something, her entire voice changes to that of an upper class snob. An example of this is in the F3 videos where the barman and ghoul both share the same voice actor. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a talented voice actor who could do numerous voices, but it isn't. It's one guy. Who can only read lines in one distinct voice.

Dialog itself was woeful, Morrowind implemented something akin to a wiki-esque dialog system, where you basically picked topics on the left and it fed you text information. In Oblivion you were lucky to have more then 3 options regardless of who you were talking to, mainly Quest, Rumours and Goodbye. For a game that was hyped up as having incredible AI and so many interactive characters the entire thing was very sterile.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailICQ Number
St. Toxic
Haha you're still not there yet
Haha you're still not there yet


Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 3382
Location: One-man religion.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:22 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Macky wrote:
This makes a lot more sense to me now.

I read about the major Fallout promulgators like Brother None refusing to buy, play, or review Fallout 3 after a slew of disagreements with the direction of the title...and it always sounded like spoiled shit - If the experience isn't just what you wanted it to be than you have a tantrum and refuse to partake in the profits. Profits in that it is all we have as Fallout fans. But now that position seems less like a poor sport response and more like a forced outcome if you ever wanted to see an authentic and genuine attempt at developing a sequel for the series.


The general idea is that history will keep repeating itself where Fallout is concerned. With Fallout: Tactics, the proposed/revealed changes made during development hardly did anything for the FO fans, but some dialogue was still maintained with the developers in hope that the success of the game would once again pave the way for a "true" Fallout title. While Tactics recieved some moderate success, stringing along fans at the promise of a Fallout 3, instead of holding true to their end of the bargain, the developers attempted to push FOBOS out for the consoles, with a FOT2 in pre-production, and while no one was creaming their pants over the idea, there was still people willing to keep the diplomatic option open just in case that the developers would eventually come to their senses. Pre release of BOS it became only too apparent, even to the nutjobs, that no work would ever be put into a true sequel to Fallout, and especially not if FOBOS was a smashing success. As it was, Interplay was under alot of economical stress, and the subsequent failure of the title managed to gut the company.

The situation is no different when it comes to Bethesda. Wether we support the game, in the hopes that losing our "Rabid Fanboy" routine will let us share our ideas and wishes with the developers peacefully, or rage against the machine in an attempt to break Bethesda as a company, we will not get a true sequel to Fallout. In the first case, the result will undoubtedly be more of the same bland garbage as is presented in FO3; if it's a financial success, it will make them think that they've found the perfect formula for future FO projects, and will stick to it no matter what. If we're lucky enough to cost them a few sales and dollars, to the point that they don't break even with FO3 (probably not going to happen) they will more likely cut their losses and throw the Fallout license away, rather than risk another failure. Neither of these two do us Fallout fans any real good, and so the best bet would probably be the neutral option; ignoring the thing alltogether, much like everyone does FOBOS.

Macky wrote:
I have been riding this train of ignoring Oblivion because I can. I didn't know that Beth's announcement for Fallout came before the release of Oblivion. This is simply because those games are not on my radar and never will be. But it is a game changer because it decreases the distance between orcs and mutants - and I realize that this is what you all have been saying from the beginning but it is only now sinking in. Like....Bethesda creating an inconsiderate, predetermined sequel to franchise X off of engine Y.


They're running a business, and this is their business strategy; the end product is hardly even a part of the equation. I think possibly we'll see more of these antics from Beth in the future, because there probably is a profit in buying up critically acclaimed franchises from dead/half-dead companies, hyping them to shit pre release, then dropping a console-turd on the carpet, grabbing the money and buying up another venture, simultaniously apologizing for the poor quality of the previous title. By the look of things (especially the intelligence of the average gamer these days) it may take a good 7 or 8 games before anyone noteworthy draws the same conclusion that I did.

Macky wrote:
In any case, I appreciate the serious responses because no one has ever taken the time to be real and debase my optimism on this.


There's certainly enough material out there for interested parties to partake of and learn from. So far I've only been repeating myself and quoting others, and while I'd love to do so for every potential consumer of Fallout 3, it does get really tiresome in the end. As Smiley said, he had to whine and bitch for a good while to convince me to do this.

Macky wrote:
Toxic, you said something about emptiness behind the NPC's and the subsequent experience of immersion... there was something about that in the F3 Review from Sweden. I guess I wouldn't understand unless I played Oblivion/Fallout3/ Bethwinddragonquest etc. but in practical terms, I don't think I understand what that really means.


It means they failed on implenting one of the most important features of the Fallout franchise; believable NPC's. A believable NPC has character, personality, a hint of history and emotion and really seems like he belongs in the game world, by being tied in with other NPC's, by adhering to the logic presented in the game world and by staying in his set character. A brief visit to Shady sands is enough to give you a fair impression on how Fallout presents its' NPC's; people are related to each other, they talk about each other with you, not as a part of a quest, but simply in conversational terms, seeing as it's a tightly knit community where everyone relies on one another and so forth. There are relations between the NPC's which are presented in more subtle ways, via hints dropped in the dialogue, and the worries they have cannot always be adressed by some simple fetch quest, and the information they provide doesn't always carry any value.

Bethesda has never had any real skill with small-talk or details, in that aspect. Their development track record has no dialogue heavy games to boast of, and their consumer group is also not one for reading, which (at least I think) is one of the primary reasons they insist on going fully voiced, when it is otherwise obvious that they don't have the capability to pull that off either. Another piece of the puzzle is the Beth-meth(od) for making games: apparently they create the world and characters FIRST, and THEN based off of what they have, they flesh the world out with, what they consider to be, storylines, intrigue and believable plots. While this may sound reasonable to some, it clearly puts a limit on imagination and severely staples creativity.

So what is the end result? A very matter-of-fact and sparse character design. NPC's hardly ever have anything meaningful or witty to say to the PC, and if they do it's more than likely forced on the player in the form of a speech, more than a natural conversation. Instead, the two main NPC interactions are 1) questing for them and 2) killing them. As the main quest often spans over numerous npc's, and is always linear (cannot be solved out of order) killing the NPC's isn't always possible, and is prevented (and sometimes prohibited) to prevent the player from making the game unbeatable.

The NPC's are shoveled into different categories, such as main quest NPC's which are nothing more than flags for you to follow through the wasteland. You pick them off in a specific, linear sequence; they say their speech, give you a rudimentary task to complete, and then pat you on the back and send you over to the next mq npc. The rest become "filler quest" npc's, because they cannot have any impact on the linear main quest, and so their wishes in the game world are limited to harmless "fetch this thing I want" and "kill that unimportant character for me" requests from the PC.

I guess I should comment a bit on Megaton (which is the stupid little township, built in the crater of an undetonated nuclear bomb btw icon_chew, that you can effectively wipe out in FO3) because it does seem, at least on the surface, to go against their primary design philosophy concerning side quests. The consequences of blowing Megaton up, however, are not worth any praise; there's worse karma to be made by stealing forks out of people's houses (no joke), no npc (from what I know so far) outside of the Megaton area is going to react negatively / positively to what you have done (in fact it's not brought up) and the only real consequence to gameplay is the death of a realtive few filler-quest npc's, and stock walk-around-and-do-and-say-nothing-of-importance npc's, which isn't that big a loss anyway, and changes next to nothing.

The rest of the npc's? Well, let's just say they'll be attacking you, and you'll be killing them, no matter what the situation is. The sandboxyness of the game allows you to wander around and explore almost unhindered, and while finding some unimportant raider camp or four-man bunker in the middle of nowhere might seem intriguing, it will be populated by people programmed to attack everything that moves within their radius, no matter your intention or potential ability to talk your way out of situations, which makes exploring nothing more than a boring, mmo style grind in the end.

Apart from not having any multi-layered conversations anywhere in the game, the monologues they do have are awfully voiced by a small group of "voice actors" who apparently don't like their jobs, and then edited not to fit into any immersive context (a good example would be an otherwise angry NPC telling you to have a pleasant and jolly day at the press of the "Good Bye" button, which is an actual example out of the game). Being fully voiced, they are also very limited in responses to what you choose to say, and as a result your choices in dialogue are few, and rarely make any difference to what the NPC will say next. Bethesda also seem to have a problem with animating facial features, and from what I've seen of Fallout 3 (and I've seen a good deal, mainly for the lulz) the facial expressions of the npc's don't change whatever happens, which is a big blow to this particular game, considering that the early installments of the series pioneered in the use of talking heads. Effectively, that means that an NPC with a jolly voice (that sounds strangely similar to all the other voices you've heard so far) might threaten you while showing only apathy and disdain with his face, and while I hate giving this game critique over graphics or technology, seeing as there are plenty of other failures to comment on, like the horrible writing for the npc dialogues, it does go a long way in breaking any potential immersion.

To sum it up, the npc's are poorly written and thought out, badly voiced, ranked by importance to the main story, have no desires outside of wanting X ammount of item Y, the death of other npc's or your death, can't act, have schizophrenic tendencies and are overall shallow and uninteresting. To be even more frank, pedestrians in a GTA game will have an easier time making the player care for their lives and dreams, than the npc's in FO3, and their presence and behavour is no less than 10 times as immersive and plausible.

Macky wrote:
Having understood Bethesda's rejection of Fallout's basic gameplay principles in exchange for the FPS market....it even still leaves something left to be salvaged...right?


Not the FPS market Macky, the fps/rpg/actionadventure hybrid console market. Basically, Oblivion and Fallout 3 adhere to a genre that fuses and dumbs down multiple genres. No self respecting FPS lover is going to rape him/herself by playing FO3, simply because it's terrible as an fps. No RPG diehard is drooling over the next big thing from Bethesda, because they simply cannot deliver a good experience on that front. Lastly, the action adventure (read as hack'n'slash) tykes are by now alot more interested in Diablo 3, or jacking off to some mmo or other, to fall for that crap. FO3 is aimed specifically at an expanding movement of dumbfucks who want their games to do a little bit of everything and who wouldn't know quality from being fucked up the ass. And then it's aimed at people who just don't know about that first group; people who expect a fun game experience, people who buy the game and then just get disappointed, but not necessarily disappointed enough to rage or trash around the TES forums -- people who can get with the hype, but never make a stand. And that's a full market's worth on its' own. And no, there is nothing to salvage in Fallout 3. They aren't even releasing mod tools, fearful as they are that some savage will remove invulnerability from the children in the game and effectively get the game banned in numerous stores and countries.

Macky wrote:
The emptiness. Is it that your dialogue options are so predictable and regimented that they jade you to the experience?


Among other things. For instance, the gameworld of Fallout 3, if converted into Fallout 1 measurements, is about the size of 1 world map area circles. Stepping out of the vault for the first time, you can already see a good 70% of the above-ground areas you will be visiting throughout the game, and more likely than not you can already tell where the invisible walls and "You cannot go any further" messages will start appearing. It's certainly not empty (in fact, this little spot of wasteland is extremely crowded) but the game experience suffers with it alot, and turns into a shallow trek'n'slash.

Macky wrote:
The Swedish reviewer acted as if persevering through the F3 journey was better than doing nothing, but that's about it. This was tied to that emptiness thing you mentioned. In an operational definition, what is it that Oblivion's 'engine' does that creates such a vapid game experience -- in terms of a concrete example?


Not the engine, the developers. They are not in it to make good games, they are in it to hype people up into parting with their hard earned money and that's it. The game leaves you with just that impression and nothing else, and being that it's a Fallout game, it also hurts the positive memories you have of Fallout. The idea that this farce can be undone via modding is a very naive notion, as while the engine could undoubtedly be used to make and isometric and turn-based game (any engine could) there is nothing in Fo3 which can be salvaged and added to; the project would have to be a Fallout 3 made from scratch, and not a mod. In the end, it's simply a massive cash-cow spin-off, which puts even more shitstains on the good name of Fallout, and so lackluster, boring and poorly executed that it hardly even deserves the scrutiny we've given it in this thread.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailAIM AddressYahoo Messenger
S4ur0n27
Mamma's Gang member
Mamma's Gang member


Joined: 01 Jun 2002
Posts: 15138
Location: Villeray

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:32 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Great post, Sandman.
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's websiteMSN MessengerICQ Number
Kashluk
Grand MF
Grand MF


Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7507

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:45 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I chose the "homosexual" -option, because I can't really say whether it's a genuine advantage or a disadvantage. But I kinda do envy you, Mackey. Oh, what I would give to forget everything about ever playing Fallout and re-enjoying the finer aspects of Fo1 and 2 once again, the joy of finding, understanding and revealing things!
View user's profileSend private message
Dreadnought
I lied
I lied


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 4003

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:47 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Kashluk wrote:
what I would give to forget everything about ever playing Fallout



View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website
Manoil
Wastelander's Nightmare
Wastelander's Nightmare


Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 3720
Location: Drifting Onward

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 9:41 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Dreadnought wrote:
Kashluk wrote:
what I would give to forget everything about ever playing Fallout



Lulz.

Seriously though, Tox, that was some mighty fine input. Seems you were passionate about it.

BTW-- I've logged in more than 28 hours of FO3 on my friend's 360. Today was the first day I encountered Deathclaws...

Mutated bears that look like werewolves, no problem. The DEFclaws... jesus. Bethesda really worked to give them the eerie, vile look of a mutant retard wanting a hug as it chases after you, arms outstretched and bladed fingers reaching hungrily.

Also should note that I have stolen both the BoS power armor (Fo1-2 Asthetic) as well as the Enclave power armor (Tactics Asthetic). Both are legit. I also bought a ripper, but I haven't had the opportunity to use it as I generally just stick to my combat shotty and shishkebob for close encounters.
Danny = PURE DEF

Personally, I've come across dark humored, strange and enthralling events-- like witnessing a little girl in 50's codachrome speaking in a german accent-- and frankly, I'm running out of complaints other than a few small details. For the most part, my standards have been met, and I have hereafter presented the 'Nod of Danny Respect.'
View user's profileSend private message
mcdonis
SDF!
SDF!


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:07 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

I have to say that it seems like not playing Oblivion is a help, at least for me anyway.


Several times I have read comments attacking a part of Fallout 3 saying (inert item\function here) sucked in Oblivion. Which was usually the opposite of how I felt about it when I noted that thing in Fallout 3.
View user's profileSend private message
Drunk_Squid
ASSHAT
ASSHAT


Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 238

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:00 am Reply with quoteBack to top

No Wakazashi.

Which brings me to the issue of the Yakuza in Fallout 2.
It's too bad it's just a random encounter and they played no role in New Reno.. just throwing it out there.............
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic


Jump to:  



View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group