The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Lemon on December 01, 2013, 03:23:14 PM

Title: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on December 01, 2013, 03:23:14 PM
Here everyone is welcome to discuss Fallout and related subjects. Although the hype has died down recently, this thread is doing well.


Quote
http://thesurvivor2299.com/

A count down site believed to be related to Fallout 4.

5 hours to go to Nuclear Winter from the posting of this topic. I hope it's a Fallout announcement, I need a new Fallout game or I'll cry.

Where do you think it'll take place? Alaska, Boston, Parsifal's backyard?


Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 01, 2013, 07:39:15 PM
In before bawing about how Bethesda sucks at Fallout.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Rushy on December 01, 2013, 08:15:33 PM
At the end of the timer Bethesda literally nukes the world to death. The most realistic and exciting game of Fallout yet!
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 01, 2013, 08:18:19 PM
I really hope it's a new Fallout game as well.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 02, 2013, 07:23:27 PM
In before bawing about how Bethesda sucks at Fallout.

I see that I shall have to start this off.  Behold, this is what Bethesda has reduced Fallout to:

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1165312-there-isnt-that-much-epicness-is-this-game/

:D
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 02, 2013, 07:30:14 PM
These campaigns are really boring now.

"Let's post a vague message somewhere, include some reasonably trivial puzzles to get people started, then some difficult/plainly impossible puzzles along the way, and we've got ourselves a 'viral' advertising campaign. Oh, and we need countdowns. Many countdowns."

It was a good idea at first, but we don't need it for literally every single big game.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 02, 2013, 09:14:57 PM
In before bawing about how Bethesda sucks at Fallout.

I see that I shall have to start this off.  Behold, this is what Bethesda has reduced Fallout to:

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1165312-there-isnt-that-much-epicness-is-this-game/

:D

The horror... the horror...
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 02, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
I maintain that you were too hard on F3, Crudblud.  Yes, the main story is a blatant rehash of F2, and they do recycle a lot of elements from the previous games that they probably would have been better off leaving alone, like the Enclave, but it was their first game in the franchise.  They obviously wanted to take some baby steps with their worldbuilding at first, maybe to get a feel for the universe they were taking on, before making any huge changes to it themselves.  It's not like they had no respect for it and just wanted to stomp all over it.  If that had been the case, they probably would have simply rebooted it.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 03, 2013, 12:19:43 AM
I play it as a reboot. I haven't played F1 or 2. People have told me not to bother.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 03, 2013, 02:11:44 AM
That doesn't make it a reboot.  The events of the first two games still happened, and the later games do occasionally refer to them.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 03, 2013, 04:01:53 AM
That doesn't make it a reboot.  The events of the first two games still happened, and the later games do occasionally refer to them.
Shh, it's a reboot. And I have no idea that it refers to them so it is basically a stand alone.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 03, 2013, 01:49:52 PM
That doesn't make it a reboot.  The events of the first two games still happened, and the later games do occasionally refer to them.
Shh, it's a reboot. And I have no idea that it refers to them so it is basically a stand alone.

It's a standalone to the degree that you don't have to play the other games to know what's going on.  But that's no different to any of the other games in the series - the events of each game are self-contained for the most part.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 03, 2013, 03:21:40 PM
In all fairness, F3 should have been totally unrelated to the originals; why go to the opposite end of the country if not to relieve yourself of the burden of all the accumulated history of the previous games? Well, it seems they at least started wanting to do that, but then they brought a whole mess of west coast stuff over with them, used them in ways that contradicted everything we learned about them prior to that, yet still chose to reference prior events from the west coast, undermining the potential for distancing the game from its predecessors even further, and reinforcing the feeling, in the minds of those who did play the originals, of something being terribly amiss. It's also kind of silly that in 2277, 200 years after the bombs fell, the Capital Wasteland is more desolate and uncivilised than F1's California, which was set in 2161 and had viable farms, trading companies, several reasonably sized cities etc. Yes, according to the lore, DC was hit harder than California, but they've also had an extra 116 years to get their shit together.

I can bring up more specific examples if no one's bothered about spoilers for the first two games, but for now I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 03, 2013, 05:28:11 PM
I think it's safe to say that nobody here is worried about spoilers.  Please, continue.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 03, 2013, 06:20:07 PM
Yeah, I don't think I'll play them and if I do I'm not worried about any spoilers.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 03, 2013, 11:10:35 PM
I was actually going to ask you exactly what they ruined and expand on your point, 'cause I'm interested. Go on. :]
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 03, 2013, 11:16:45 PM
I am now playing the original, just because.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 04, 2013, 08:39:36 PM
Okay, my apologies for the delay, folks, here's a (by no means exhaustive) account of my issues with Fallout 3.

I've been reading up on the lore to make sure I have my facts straight, and the inclusion of Super Mutants, the Enclave and even the Brotherhood of Steel is fine in terms of lore, just about, although I can't shake the feeling that they were brought in because of laziness. As I said before, I really think it would have been best if F3 was a clean break, a new story away from the events of the other games, and with the new setting it seemed like that's what they were going for, it was a disappointment in the extreme to be given the same old stuff but in a terribly dumbed down manner.

The SMs are explained away by Vault 87. FEV was always a government project, so it stands to reason there would be a vault or two acting as a test arena. My main problem is that the SMs are just a little bit too similar to The Master's Mariposa SMs, I find it hard to believe that both were created under the same conditions using the same process. It would have been nice to see some diversity there, rather than the same thing with a new paint job. The fact that they are equipped with energy weapons, miniature nuke launchers and full body armour is also bizarre, where is all that coming from? In F1 it made sense, the SMs were created at a military base where weapons and other combat related stuff would be readily available, but here it's just some guys in a vault which might have slightly more weapons than usual, but not enough to arm a force that could terrorise a city.

The Enclave had bases in places other than California, so it makes sense that they would be able to amass a large force once again after such a devastating defeat. My problem here is that the game has nothing new to say about them, their philosophy and the lengths they will go to do achieve their goals are all fully explained in F2, their appearance here offers nothing new or interesting. On top of that, they are far less intimidating than they were in F2, not least of all because they don't have anything like Frank Horrigan on their side, and my essential feeling on encountering their soldiers in the field for the first time is: "why am I being made to fight you again?"—a feeling compounded by every piece of narrative development concerning them throughout the game.

If the Enclave's problem was total redundancy, the Brotherhood of Steel's problem is that there's plenty new to say, but it's totally incongruous with everything that makes them what they are. The BoS doesn't strictly prohibit involvement with outsiders, but it is very rare that they choose to deal with them, and even more rare that they choose to do so in a friendly manner. In your first encounter with them in F1, they purposely send you to a death trap just to keep you out of their business. They wouldn't think twice about letting a town be overrun by deathclaws, so long as they didn't pose a potential threat to them. Their primary interests are self-preservation, finding pre-war technology, learning how it works and keeping it out of the hands of those who might misuse it, and that last part is about as close as they get to being the wasteland guardians they are made out to be here. To have them be altruistic do-gooders claiming a stake in the survival of wastelanders is just weird, and I find it hard to believe that Elder Lyons would not have been ousted for going against both the word and spirit of the Codex, let alone that those who did challenge him were so few in number that they were thrown out.

Again, lore wise the presence of all these ostensibly west coast elements in DC checks out, but I just don't know why they're there from a storytelling perspective, they feel like place-holders for other things that should have been there instead. It's as if Bethesda started out with the intention of doing something totally different, then changed their mind halfway through and decided to pander to fans of the originals, and ultimately ended up with some bizarre hybrid that doesn't quite work.  I think the BoS and Enclave could have worked if, instead of being central figures, they were two sides of a widespread conflict that formed the backdrop for the story, which could have been a perfectly good coming-of-age tale. With the father/son (or daughter) thing, it seems like it would have been served much better as a small, personal drama story, rather than an all out “ur savin da wastlanz wit ur dade n opdimuse prim!” kind of thing. Let big things happen, but keep the focus on the small things. I really think that would have been a story worth telling, but the story we got was a mish-mash of F1 and 2 with little rhyme or reason.

I already talked about the seemingly anachronistic setting, how it makes no sense that, even with the greater fire power used on DC, the wasteland would remain almost totally unsettled after 200 years where California was already comparatively thriving after not even 100. Not to say there aren't any settlements in DC, there are quite a few, but none of them seem to make any sense aside from Rivet City. Megaton is built around a nuke, at which one feels they almost deserve to be blown up for being so stupid; Little Lamplight is just... do I really need to say why Little Lamplight is bad?; Big Town is apparently constantly harassed by SMs, which is bizarre considering they have no guns (bizarre in itself for two reasons: Big Towners are former Little Lamplighters, and the latter have access to considerable weaponry; you can literally find fully loaded guns in trash cans in the Capital Wasteland) and could easily be wiped out in one fell swoop—SMs are not the smartest, but they are quite effective at killing unarmed civilians; Girdershade consists of a woman who collects Nuka Cola memorabilia through means unknown and some random dude who wants to bang her, how they have survived more than a couple of months is unknown to me. There are some others that are slipping my mind at this point, some may aid my case, others may not, but I feel like my point that most of these make no goddamn sense has been made. I'm not even talking about realism here, just about making sense in the context of the world.

Speaking of the world, the Capital Wasteland doesn't feel like Fallout at all. In essence this is a good thing, treading new ground for the series, but the realisation presented is really quite generic, looking more like the aftermath of a Roland Emmerich film in which the heroes never showed up, and so far removed from the spirit of the previous games that it just doesn't belong. Yes, F1 and 2 presented harsh worlds which were often very bleak, but not this washed out Book of Eli-looking stuff with a sickly Matrix-green pallor. The bleakness was also contrasted with well placed humour, something which is in very short supply here—whether that's down to the writing or the horrendous voice acting is a matter for debate, perhaps. I think that about sums it up; the ideas are not bad, but they have been realised in a lazy manner and ultimately missed the point of Fallout by several miles.

I sincerely hope they get their shit together for Fallout 4, it's not right that the series should be in the hands of people who don't understand it. I'm not saying I could do a better job*, I'm just a fan who wants to see one of my favourite gaming franchises get back on its feet after the atrocities that followed in the wake of Black Isle's disbandment. New Vegas was not perfect, but it was a big step in the right direction, and I can only hope the people at Bethesda have taken on board what made it so much more worthy of being the third numbered title in the series than their own attempt, and have taken steps to make sure they don't take more blind swings of the axe at an already thoroughly thrashed title in this latest instalment.

*okay, I totally am
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 06, 2013, 04:09:04 AM
lore lore lore

The SMs are explained away by Vault 87. FEV was always a government project, so it stands to reason there would be a vault or two acting as a test arena. My main problem is that the SMs are just a little bit too similar to The Master's Mariposa SMs, I find it hard to believe that both were created under the same conditions using the same process. It would have been nice to see some diversity there, rather than the same thing with a new paint job. The fact that they are equipped with energy weapons, miniature nuke launchers and full body armour is also bizarre, where is all that coming from? In F1 it made sense, the SMs were created at a military base where weapons and other combat related stuff would be readily available, but here it's just some guys in a vault which might have slightly more weapons than usual, but not enough to arm a force that could terrorise a city.

It was the same FEV, so it makes sense that the SMs would be similar.  Perhaps they could have gone for a little more variety, yes, but I imagine they were worried about getting a reaction from the fans of "That's not what the SMs look like!  Betrayal!"

Quote
The Enclave had bases in places other than California, so it makes sense that they would be able to amass a large force once again after such a devastating defeat. My problem here is that the game has nothing new to say about them, their philosophy and the lengths they will go to do achieve their goals are all fully explained in F2, their appearance here offers nothing new or interesting. On top of that, they are far less intimidating than they were in F2, not least of all because they don't have anything like Frank Horrigan on their side, and my essential feeling on encountering their soldiers in the field for the first time is: "why am I being made to fight you again?"—a feeling compounded by every piece of narrative development concerning them throughout the game.

This probably goes back to what I was saying earlier about them wanting to start off slowly with their world-building and get new players accustomed to the Fallout universe.  However, there is one thing that the Enclave had in this game that they didn't have in F2 - Malcolm McDowell.  Come on, you have to admit that you liked Eden at least a little.  McDowell gleefully chewed the scenery anytime he spoke, and he was obviously having so much fun with the role that it was impossible not to enjoy it along with him.  In fact, I'd say that he was one of the best parts of the game.

Quote
If the Enclave's problem was total redundancy, the Brotherhood of Steel's problem is that there's plenty new to say, but it's totally incongruous with everything that makes them what they are. The BoS doesn't strictly prohibit involvement with outsiders, but it is very rare that they choose to deal with them, and even more rare that they choose to do so in a friendly manner. In your first encounter with them in F1, they purposely send you to a death trap just to keep you out of their business. They wouldn't think twice about letting a town be overrun by deathclaws, so long as they didn't pose a potential threat to them. Their primary interests are self-preservation, finding pre-war technology, learning how it works and keeping it out of the hands of those who might misuse it, and that last part is about as close as they get to being the wasteland guardians they are made out to be here. To have them be altruistic do-gooders claiming a stake in the survival of wastelanders is just weird, and I find it hard to believe that Elder Lyons would not have been ousted for going against both the word and spirit of the Codex, let alone that those who did challenge him were so few in number that they were thrown out.

When you make a complaint like this, is it any wonder that Bethesda decided not to throw in any new twists with the Enclave?  In any case, it's made very clear all throughout the game that this chapter of the Brotherhood has abandoned its original mission, and that the higher-ups are not at all happy about it - but what can they do?  Go to war?  Send over more men and slaughter them all?  You could make the argument that this conflict of principles wasn't handled very well, and maybe it wasn't, but the concept itself isn't a bad one, and it's quite plausible that a situation like this would arise at some point during the Brotherhood's long history.  After all, Lyons wasn't the only member to grow disillusioned with the Brotherhood's goals and purpose; he just took it further than anyone else.

Quote
Again, lore wise the presence of all these ostensibly west coast elements in DC checks out, but I just don't know why they're there from a storytelling perspective, they feel like place-holders for other things that should have been there instead. It's as if Bethesda started out with the intention of doing something totally different, then changed their mind halfway through and decided to pander to fans of the originals, and ultimately ended up with some bizarre hybrid that doesn't quite work.  I think the BoS and Enclave could have worked if, instead of being central figures, they were two sides of a widespread conflict that formed the backdrop for the story, which could have been a perfectly good coming-of-age tale. With the father/son (or daughter) thing, it seems like it would have been served much better as a small, personal drama story, rather than an all out “ur savin da wastlanz wit ur dade n opdimuse prim!” kind of thing. Let big things happen, but keep the focus on the small things. I really think that would have been a story worth telling, but the story we got was a mish-mash of F1 and 2 with little rhyme or reason.

Hmm.  An interesting idea.

Quote
I already talked about the seemingly anachronistic setting, how it makes no sense that, even with the greater fire power used on DC, the wasteland would remain almost totally unsettled after 200 years where California was already comparatively thriving after not even 100. Not to say there aren't any settlements in DC, there are quite a few, but none of them seem to make any sense aside from Rivet City. Megaton is built around a nuke, at which one feels they almost deserve to be blown up for being so stupid; Little Lamplight is just... do I really need to say why Little Lamplight is bad?; Big Town is apparently constantly harassed by SMs, which is bizarre considering they have no guns (bizarre in itself for two reasons: Big Towners are former Little Lamplighters, and the latter have access to considerable weaponry; you can literally find fully loaded guns in trash cans in the Capital Wasteland) and could easily be wiped out in one fell swoop—SMs are not the smartest, but they are quite effective at killing unarmed civilians; Girdershade consists of a woman who collects Nuka Cola memorabilia through means unknown and some random dude who wants to bang her, how they have survived more than a couple of months is unknown to me. There are some others that are slipping my mind at this point, some may aid my case, others may not, but I feel like my point that most of these make no goddamn sense has been made. I'm not even talking about realism here, just about making sense in the context of the world.

I can't disagree with any of this - well, the one thing I will say is that the guy in Girdershade is a badass who's capable of protecting the two of them, but it's still a silly setup, and so are all the other places you mentioned.  Someone down the line must have thought that eccentricity was the way to go for pretty much everyone in the game.  Maybe they thought it would be funny?

Quote
Speaking of the world, the Capital Wasteland doesn't feel like Fallout at all. In essence this is a good thing, treading new ground for the series, but the realisation presented is really quite generic, looking more like the aftermath of a Roland Emmerich film in which the heroes never showed up, and so far removed from the spirit of the previous games that it just doesn't belong. Yes, F1 and 2 presented harsh worlds which were often very bleak, but not this washed out Book of Eli-looking stuff with a sickly Matrix-green pallor. The bleakness was also contrasted with well placed humour, something which is in very short supply here—whether that's down to the writing or the horrendous voice acting is a matter for debate, perhaps.

Yeah, I think Bethesda was more interested in depicting a post-apocalyptic world than one that was post-post-apocalyptic.  That certainly wasn't what Fallout was about.  And I also agree that the comedy, writing, and voice acting were almost entirely crap.  I think the funniest part of the game is when Autumn is interrogating you, and you have the option to reply with "Fuck you," and follow it up with, "No, seriously.  Fuck you."  That really tickled me for some reason.

Anyway, thanks for the lengthy response.  I don't suppose you've played the DLC, by any chance?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 06, 2013, 08:51:37 AM
I can't remember, did dropping your intelligence stats to 1 give you the 'stupid' dialogue options as in FNV?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 06, 2013, 08:06:04 PM
@Saddam: Thank you, too. I'll get back to you later.

I can't remember, did dropping your intelligence stats to 1 give you the 'stupid' dialogue options as in FNV?
Maybe a couple of lines, but NV's stupid dialogue was severely limited as well. In the original games it actually affected how NPCs reacted to you, whereas in NV the text is different but yields the same results as an average INT character. The only non-superficial differences to speech based on INT occur when you have it at 8+, I believe.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 07, 2013, 12:03:06 PM
well, that was an interesting result
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 07, 2013, 01:26:46 PM
well, that was an interesting result

What was?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 07, 2013, 01:57:36 PM
F**king b*st*rd
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Blanko on December 07, 2013, 02:23:53 PM
well, that was an interesting result

What was?

The site was a hoax. I mean, we've pretty much known this for days, but yeah.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 07, 2013, 05:25:07 PM
Oh thank god, I actually thought Bethesda was lame enough to set the game in 2299.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 07, 2013, 05:43:06 PM
Fucking redditors.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 07, 2013, 07:08:57 PM
lol@gulliblefanboys

Anyway, I want to hear more bawing.  Has anyone else played the original games?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 07, 2013, 09:47:49 PM
lol@gulliblefanboys

Anyone, I want to hear more bawing.  Has anyone else played the original games?

I remember I looked on reddit's Fallout board once, it was terrible. Some people didn't even realise F3 was the third game in the series.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 07, 2013, 09:51:02 PM
lol@gulliblefanboys

Anyone, I want to hear more bawing.  Has anyone else played the original games?

I remember I looked on reddit's Fallout board once, it was terrible. Some people didn't even realise F3 was the third game in the series.
Even though it's in the name?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Rushy on December 07, 2013, 09:51:17 PM
I remember I looked on reddit's Fallout board once, it was terrible. Some people didn't even realise F3 was the third game in the series.

Did the game with a huge ass "FALLOUT 3" title on the box not, you know, give it away?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 07, 2013, 10:22:41 PM
Even though it's in the name?

Did the game with a huge ass "FALLOUT 3" title on the box not, you know, give it away?

Yes, they really were that stupid.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 07, 2013, 10:41:37 PM
Or were they just trolls?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Blanko on December 07, 2013, 11:43:00 PM
The number doesn't necessarily mean anything, I mean Final Fantasy started with 7 after all. :^)
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 07, 2013, 11:47:54 PM
Well, I've known people who thought Street Fighter 2 was the first game in the series.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 07, 2013, 11:58:16 PM
My question was not answered.  Reveal yourselves, old-school fanboys!
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Rushy on December 07, 2013, 11:59:12 PM
My question was not answered.  Reveal yourselves, old-school fanboys!

Has anyone else played the original games?

What original games? No one answered because no one knows what you're talking about.

Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 08, 2013, 12:01:02 AM
I have tried both Fallout and Fallout 2. I didn't get far in either of them.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 08, 2013, 12:30:12 AM
I have tried both Fallout and Fallout 2. I didn't get far in either of them.

Same. I tried, I really did. :P
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 08, 2013, 12:31:44 AM
In Fallout 2, I started to run around randomly on the map, and eventually I died at a random encounter and never touched the game again. I must reinstall both of them and give them a second chance.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Particle Person on December 08, 2013, 12:36:48 AM
I've beaten Fallout 2, but I've only played a demo of the first one. Years ago, while I had a very high fever, I experienced hallucinations of Junktown.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 08, 2013, 02:49:01 AM
Or were they just trolls?
I would have believed that if I hadn't met people IRL who boldly proclaimed, with a straight face, that New Vegas was the second game in the series.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 08, 2013, 04:22:06 AM
What original games? No one answered because no one knows what you're talking about.

It helps if you read the thread before replying.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2013, 04:30:33 AM
It helps if you read the thread before replying.

It helps if you would make sense. Why are you talking about original games? You mean Fallout? You've never played Fallout?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 08, 2013, 04:37:14 AM
Yes, in the thread about Fallout, I was indeed talking about Fallout.  And I hadn't played it until a few days ago.  I'm interested in becoming a full-fledged fanboy.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 08, 2013, 05:40:51 AM
It helps if you read the thread before replying.

It helps if you would make sense. Why are you talking about original games? You mean Fallout? You've never played Fallout?

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have never played Fallout
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2013, 04:49:53 PM
I hadn't until a few days ago.  I'm interested in becoming a full-fledged fanboy.

Well, it's not hard to get, it's even on steam.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2013, 09:36:30 PM
@Saddam: Thank you, too. I'll get back to you later.

Ahem.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 09, 2013, 09:51:04 PM
@Saddam: Thank you, too. I'll get back to you later.

Ahem.

I said "later." I was being deliberately vague in case I got bored.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2013, 10:37:53 PM
There is nothing boring about lore lore lore.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 11, 2013, 12:51:23 PM
It was the same FEV, so it makes sense that the SMs would be similar.  Perhaps they could have gone for a little more variety, yes, but I imagine they were worried about getting a reaction from the fans of "That's not what the SMs look like!  Betrayal!"
Actually, Vault 87 FEV is a modified strain, and supposedly inferior to Mariposa FEV—kind of weird that a test vault in the government's back yard would be using inferior FEV, come to think of it. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any traditional looking SMs either, just that it would have been nice to have some variety in an enemy that you spend a lot of time fighting. Also, I'm glad they brought back centaurs, since they're creepy as all hell, but the creation process was a specific invention of the Master, it seems kind of odd that a bunch of effectively retarded SMs who don't really have any connection to their Mariposa counterparts would know how to make them.

Quote
This probably goes back to what I was saying earlier about them wanting to start off slowly with their world-building and get new players accustomed to the Fallout universe.  However, there is one thing that the Enclave had in this game that they didn't have in F2 - Malcolm McDowell.  Come on, you have to admit that you liked Eden at least a little.  McDowell gleefully chewed the scenery anytime he spoke, and he was obviously having so much fun with the role that it was impossible not to enjoy it along with him.  In fact, I'd say that he was one of the best parts of the game.
As much as I love Malcolm, that's window dressing, and doesn't change the fact that the Enclave as presented in the game doesn't need to be there. I think Eden would have been better as a living breathing character equal in influence to Autumn, that way the tension between the two could have been brought out in the form of an internal conflict or faction split. That would have been awesome. Still, I have to admit that a supercomputer with Malcolm McDowell's voice is one of the better things in the game.

Quote
When you make a complaint like this, is it any wonder that Bethesda decided not to throw in any new twists with the Enclave?  In any case, it's made very clear all throughout the game that this chapter of the Brotherhood has abandoned its original mission, and that the higher-ups are not at all happy about it - but what can they do?  Go to war?  Send over more men and slaughter them all?  You could make the argument that this conflict of principles wasn't handled very well, and maybe it wasn't, but the concept itself isn't a bad one, and it's quite plausible that a situation like this would arise at some point during the Brotherhood's long history.  After all, Lyons wasn't the only member to grow disillusioned with the Brotherhood's goals and purpose; he just took it further than anyone else.
If they already knew the changes would be poorly received by anyone who knew the series prior, why did they bother making them at all? It all comes back to my feeling that at some point Bethesda's goals became a hybrid of wanting to please both the Elder Scrolls audience (i.e.: people who perhaps don't know Fallout and will buy the game because it's a major Bethesda title) and old fans, ultimately missing the mark when it came to the latter. Anyway: I never said that it couldn't happen, just that there's no way Lyons would have faced so little resistance, nor that the outcasts would be so few in number.

Quote
I can't disagree with any of this - well, the one thing I will say is that the guy in Girdershade is a badass who's capable of protecting the two of them, but it's still a silly setup, and so are all the other places you mentioned.  Someone down the line must have thought that eccentricity was the way to go for pretty much everyone in the game.  Maybe they thought it would be funny?
I seem to recall Girdershade-man just straight up dies if you convince him to the Nuka-Cola factory on his own, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong. Eccentricity is fine, and indeed has its place in the originals, but it's just so hamfisted here that I would rather have the whole game played totally serious. If you can't do humour, don't.

Quote
Yeah, I think Bethesda was more interested in depicting a post-apocalyptic world than one that was post-post-apocalyptic.  That certainly wasn't what Fallout was about.  And I also agree that the comedy, writing, and voice acting were almost entirely crap.  I think the funniest part of the game is when Autumn is interrogating you, and you have the option to reply with "Fuck you," and follow it up with, "No, seriously.  Fuck you."  That really tickled me for some reason.
I wouldn't be complaining about the setting if they'd set it at a more reasonable point in the timeline, say in between 1 and 2, but having it set so far after either just makes it seem silly. I think Bethesda has tried to TES-ify the universe, this is apparent right off the bat as the main action takes place in 2277, 200 years after the bombs fell (incidentally, that's why the “2299” thing made this hoax so believable) and combined with the biblical quote about the water of life, the hailing of the Lone Wanderer as some messianic figure by Three Dog, a sort of wasteland prophet in his own right, the fact that you are expected to sacrifice yourself to complete your father's work and so on, the whole thing reeks of the prophecy and fate stuff that is rampant in TES games. All that stuff works in those games, but you can't just transpose it to some completely different universe and have it work as well, if at all.

Quote
Anyway, thanks for the lengthy response.  I don't suppose you've played the DLC, by any chance?
I have played them all. I liked Mothership Zeta best because it was just goofy fun, and a welcome tonal contrast to the vanilla game. It felt like an expanded version of one of the silly random encounters from the original games, and in fact I'd say it's the closest they got to the humour of the originals, like the holodisk where the aliens are trying to interrogate a cow. Of course, the obvious criticism there is “how come aliens with highly advanced technology are using holodisks?” and yet, taking the DLC as a send-up of hammy science fiction shows, that kind of technological gaff is at just the right level of conceit. I really wish there had been more silly fun in this vein and less of the omen and portent of the main quest in the game proper.

Broken Steel at least fixed the super-dumb ending, but it's yet another totally pointless resurrection of the Enclave. A name like “Broken Steel” suggests something else; the chapter in turmoil, Lyons being taken to task for his betrayal of the Codex, internal faction wars, the player perhaps becoming a key figure in determining the future of the chapter. Something like NV's Brotherhood/Veronica side-story but on a grander scale.

Point Lookout had promise, I really like the opening sequence, the hallucination sequence is pretty good too, but overall it's just more of the same bland colour scheme and 90% of everything you encounter trying to kill you. Also the “English” ghoul who is obviously an American doing a sort of posh-ified take on Brick Top from Snatch just doesn't sit well with me.

Operation Anchorage, which I think most people disliked, I actually thought was one of the better things in the game. It was a part of Fallout's history we hadn't seen up close and personal before, and I think it was handled pretty well. It was also nice to have something other than green and brown on the screen. Incidentally, I think the other VR sequence in the game, Tranquility Lane, was perhaps the best moment in the main story.

I have a feeling that The Pitt could have been the best of the bunch, but for me it lost its punch rather quickly. I like the atmosphere of the opening, but by the time the story is in full swing I feel like I'm missing something. Ultimately your choice of whether the baby is with Ashur or the other guy doesn't seem to matter, nothing happens either way, and this makes the baby seem not so much a person of great importance as a possession, and the player the middleman in a petty argument between two people who both claim sole ownership of a block of wood. It's difficult to make player decisions genuinely weighty, but I just couldn't take this one seriously. File under “missed opportunity” along with Point Lookout and Broken Steel.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 11, 2013, 10:18:04 PM
http://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956

Interesting...
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 11, 2013, 10:23:00 PM
http://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956

Interesting...

I trust no one and nothing.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 11, 2013, 11:26:57 PM
Well, of course Fallout 4 is real.  Do people really think that Bethesda just isn't going to bother making it or something? ???  The question shouldn't be whether or not there's another game coming, but whether or not these leaked details are legitimate.  I don't know if they are, but I'm not going to bother looking at them unless there's also confirmation that they're real.  And I mean confirmation from Bethesda, not confirmation from Random Internet Guy.

I shall resume my super-serious discussion with Crudblud later, btw.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 11, 2013, 11:37:12 PM
War. War never changes.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 12, 2013, 04:30:06 AM
Rumours of the Massachusetts Commonwealth as a setting have been around since before Skyrim, though. I do think it would be cool to go there, in F3 it is suggested that this is perhaps the most technologically advanced and civilised area in North America, and I really hope Bethesda can deliver on that promise, but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 12, 2013, 04:34:08 PM
Since they keep putting in the Enclave, but the amount of people gets smaller and smaller, I do hope we get one last Enclave soldier, with one leg and 3 fingers. In Fallout 5, there can be an ear found somewhere named Enclave.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 12, 2013, 05:10:11 PM
Motherfuckers!  I bought these games for twenty dollars just a couple of weeks ago, and now they're fucking free?

http://www.gog.com/promo/fallout_series_giveaway_winter_promo_2013

Fuck!  Shit!  Goddammit!
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 12, 2013, 05:15:32 PM
Motherfuckers!  I bought these games for twenty dollars just a couple of weeks ago, and now they're fucking free?

http://www.gog.com/promo/fallout_series_giveaway_winter_promo_2013

Fuck!  Shit!  Goddammit!

Ouch. That sucks. Well, not for me, but ouch.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 12, 2013, 07:10:20 PM
Motherfuckers!  I bought these games for twenty dollars just a couple of weeks ago, and now they're fucking free?

http://www.gog.com/promo/fallout_series_giveaway_winter_promo_2013

Fuck!  Shit!  Goddammit!

Just found that and am trying to get through how waterlogged their servers are at the moment. Are they for Steam or do you have to use some crappy GOG client?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Blanko on December 12, 2013, 07:13:49 PM
Motherfuckers!  I bought these games for twenty dollars just a couple of weeks ago, and now they're fucking free?

http://www.gog.com/promo/fallout_series_giveaway_winter_promo_2013

Fuck!  Shit!  Goddammit!

Just found that and am trying to get through how waterlogged their servers are at the moment. Are they for Steam or do you have to use some crappy GOG client?

Neither, they're stand-alone downloads.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 12, 2013, 07:15:27 PM
I managed to get them on my account, although I had to attempt to login several times before I could actually get on it. Anyway, I understand that once the game is on your account you can download it any time?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 12, 2013, 07:19:49 PM
Motherfuckers!  I bought these games for twenty dollars just a couple of weeks ago, and now they're fucking free?

http://www.gog.com/promo/fallout_series_giveaway_winter_promo_2013

Fuck!  Shit!  Goddammit!

Just found that and am trying to get through how waterlogged their servers are at the moment. Are they for Steam or do you have to use some crappy GOG client?

Neither, they're stand-alone downloads.

That's not so bad, then. Would've preferred Steam for convenience, but.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 12, 2013, 09:02:53 PM
I really want lonesome road. I want to do a new Legion Save and get a lot of the Lanius-copy gear. It's unique enough that it fits into the Legion Style without looking like you're a rip off. Actually, it might be good to RP receiving it for saving Caesar's life, if you do. And the Blade of the West will be good stuff.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 15, 2013, 03:09:35 AM
I shall resume my super-serious discussion with Crudblud later, btw.

Ooh, ooh, is it my turn? H-here I go: Ahem.

Since they keep putting in the Enclave, but the amount of people gets smaller and smaller, I do hope we get one last Enclave soldier, with one leg and 3 fingers. In Fallout 5, there can be an ear found somewhere named Enclave.

I missed this before, somehow. Upon reading it just now I almost sprayed coffee all over my monitor.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 17, 2013, 11:48:53 PM
lore lore lore

Come to think of it, I don't know if I really have much left to say.  I understand your point about the lore, and I agree with your concern of Bethesda basically trying to turn the franchise into some kind of sci-fi TES, what with all the dumb clichés and transparent efforts to make it all "epic" and shit.  Nevertheless, I feel somewhat more optimistic about the future of the franchise than you do.  Bethesda has shown itself to be capable of improvement in the past, and has indeed improved considerably since F3 came out, as we saw with Skyrim.  And when it comes to the lore and worldbuilding, well, whatever the motivation was behind recycling those elements from the previous games, be it laziness, pandering, or genuinely thinking that it was the best way to bring the franchise into the mainstream, they certainly won't be able to do it again.  They're going to have to be more original for the next one, as apparently they were for the DLC.

Speaking of the DLC, thanks for those mini-reviews.  I was planning on jumping into them right after I was done with NV, but now I'm feeling a little burned-out from that shitty game engine, so that might wait a while.  Oh, and I suppose I'll give a serious response to your Lonesome Road commentary at some point, and I'll put it here so as to not clutter up that other thread.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 18, 2013, 08:52:16 PM
In before bawing about how Bethesda sucks at Fallout.

I see that I shall have to start this off.  Behold, this is what Bethesda has reduced Fallout to:

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1165312-there-isnt-that-much-epicness-is-this-game/

:D

moar

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1478950-obsidian-should-work-on-their-own-fallout-series/?p=23154488

Quote
Honestly, I think both Bethesda and Obsidian should work together on Fallout games. They both have great ideas and elements which would just be perfect. This is what I mean:
 
...
 
Bethesda
--------------
-More "Fallout" atmosphere
-storyline
-better balanced karma system
-perks
-Three Dog talking about Lone Wanderer's actions & choices
-more "emotional" (like the "Good" ending of Fallout 3)
-houses being more customizable & companion to give you a haircut
-Armored Vault 101 Jumpsuit (love it) & weapons
-better craftable weapons (Railway Rifle, Deathclaw Gauntlet, ect.)

I giggled.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 18, 2013, 10:29:54 PM

Quote from: idiot
-Three Dog talking about Lone Wanderer's actions & choices


what
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 19, 2013, 04:24:41 AM
All right, while it was hilarious to just give a nonchalant one-liner reply to Crudblud's defense of LR, here's a more serious response:

And now I've beaten Lonesome Road.  To once more quote Sir Drainsalot:

Quote
Lonesome road reminded me a lot of DM - started off well then slowly died. At least the combat wasn't quite to head-bashingly frustrating. But the latter half has all the hallmarks of a ran-out-of-time-and-money job. A sandbox game reduced to a single linear path? Check. Entire plot threads dangled and then forgotten about? Check. Disappointing final boss showdown? Oh yes, without the effort to even animate the guys face, so we'll just stick a mask on there. It says something that the best character in there was an eyebot.

And here's something from Chris:

Quote
I didn't like Lonesome Road, I thought it prescribed too much of your character's back-story. By the time my courier got there he wouldn't have done half the things Ullyses accused him of. I also didn't like the really linear path and the lack of humour.

There was some cool new equipment in this one, like that rocket launcher.  The combat was fairly challenging.  And I really liked the harsh, bleak environment, which seemed like the ideal setting to finally close out the game's story.  That's about all the good things I can say for this one.  I actually feel a little bad for criticizing Honest Hearts after playing this.  I mean, for fuck's sake, this add-on doesn't just feel rushed, it feels unfinished!  Where are the sidequests?  Where are the other characters?  Where are the opportunities for exploration?  Where's the roleplaying?  Where's the opening introduction so we know what the fuck is going on?  Where's the setup for why the Courier is even bothering to do all this shit in the first place?  I'm doing it because I want to play through the DLC, of course, but surely there has to be some kind of in-universe motivation for the character, right?

Speaking of characters and their motivations, Ulysses sucked.  I think Obsidian really wanted to portray him as a super-deep and complex character whose quest to destroy the player is totally understandable, but it didn't work.  At best, he came across as a deranged nut.  And his feud with the Courier had no personal resonance with me at all, because of the simple fact that I had nothing to do with what happened to the Divide.  It was in the past!  Now, if they could have played around with the timeline a bit and tied the destruction of the Divide to something that happened during the main story, something that the Courier did while being controlled by the player, then maybe it could have worked.  But to simply make up an event that predates the main story and expect the player to feel any kind of guilt or responsibility for it?  No.  That's just stupid.

NV, more than any other game in the series so far, is about the past, nostalgia, resisting change; its namesake a relic of the Old World kept in working order by Mr House, a man who can't let go; the central event the battle at Hoover Dam, people across the Mojave fearing the inevitable change that will come no matter who is victorious. In keeping with this theme, all the DLC is in some way about people like Mr House: Thinktank, Elijah, Dog, Dean Domino, Joshua Graham and so on, they all want to cling to what is lost forever. Ulysses is the most extreme example, his tenuous grip on the Old World is his raison d'être, he is adorned with its symbols and resides in a place that likely resembles the world in 2077 (the closest he can physically come to the pre-war world), taking refuge from the chaos of the Divide inside a nuclear missile silo, the physical cause of the Old World's destruction. The final conflict of Lonesome Road is symbolic of the final death of the Old World, Ulysses being something like a steadfast cell, if you will, resisting the death and rot that has consumed the rest of the body. There are countless other examples of this throughout the game: a man who thinks himself a god (recalling Caligula) trying to unite the tribes in a simulacrum of Ancient Rome; the BoS resisting necessary change in the face of sure death; Enclave remnants trying but ultimately failing to leave behind their militaristic past; a ghoul who remains forever attached to a lost love and a former life; former soldiers of The Master's army seeking his likeness and dominion in Tabitha, Marcus and even Father Elijah in Dog's case—there are many more besides.

In LR we learn that a package The Courier delivered to the Divide a long time ago was in fact a bomb of some sort, sent by whom and for what reason we do not know. Ulysses doesn't know either, so who else has he, in his nostalgic madness, to blame but the one who made the delivery? When he sees that The Courier would be next in line after him for the Platinum Chip delivery, he quits the job so that they will take it, knowing that he is effectively signing their death warrant. When this plan fails, his obsession and desire for revenge grows even stronger, and he decides to do the job himself, calling The Courier out to one of the most inhospitable places in the west, knowing that, if they don't die on their way there, he will do everything in his power to destroy them with his own hands. Ultimately he cannot do this and, one way or another, lets go of the past. This fits with the idea that The Courier is the agent of change and bringer of closure to the inhabitants of the Mojave, with LR as the ultimate act of closure and Hoover Dam as the ultimate act of change.

First of all, I should probably clarify my criticism of Ulysses being insane.  It wasn't so much that his motives were irrational, but that his presentation was so one-dimensional, so "generic crazy bad guy," that he was never able to appear as complex or sympathetic as his history suggests he should be.  Like the way he talks in such a weird cryptic fashion, almost never telling the Courier anything outright, and all that pseudo-philosophical bullshit he keeps spouting that never actually adds up to anything meaningful.  This guy would really prefer to play pretentious mind games than talk straight to someone he hates as much as the Courier?  And the voice acting, too - that dull, flat, emotionless monotone.  There's not a hint of passion to him - no anger, no sadness, nothing.  If you're going to give us a character with all this baggage, then you've got to fucking sell it.  Needless to say, Obsidian did not sell this one.

Anyway, you made a few slight mistakes with the lore here.  We, along with Ulysses, do know who bombed the Divide and why.  It was the NCR, and they did it in desperation to stop the Legion from getting their hands on all the weaponry stored there.  (Also, the Courier didn't deliver a bomb itself, but a detonator to activate the ICBMs that were already there.)  In fact, the main reason Ulysses lures the Courier to the Divide isn't to kill him, but to trick him into bringing him ED-E, which (who?) he can use to activate the nuclear missiles and have his revenge on the parties that he views to be the real culprits, the NCR and the Legion.  That, by itself, I thought was a fairly decent idea.  But that just makes it all the more annoying that there's no real in-universe motivation for the Courier to be going on this trip, which might justify his blunder of bringing ED-E to Ulysses.  Yeah, they can try to justify it with "but Ulysses passed the assignment on to you, why is this?" but it really just comes down to the Courier crossing the Divide and fighting off hordes of monsters basically on a whim.

And on the subject of passing the assignment to the Courier, it's not like Ulysses had any knowledge of Benny's plan to steal the platinum chip and murder its carrier or anything.  No, he was just assuming that crossing the wasteland itself would be too much for an experienced courier, which makes...no sense at all.  Yeah, the implication when the subject was first raised with Johnson Nash in Primm was definitely that Ulysses knew what was about to go down, but that was no doubt one of the many things they had to cut when they rushed through LR, so they fell back on the weak "well the wasteland is dangerous derp" explanation.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2013, 04:36:58 AM
that just makes it all the more annoying that there's no real in-universe motivation for the Courier to be going on this trip

Using this logic you can more or less destroy every Bethesda game ever made. "Why the fuck am I even doing this, again?"
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 19, 2013, 07:49:54 PM
that just makes it all the more annoying that there's no real in-universe motivation for the Courier to be going on this trip

Using this logic you can more or less destroy every Bethesda game ever made. "Why the fuck am I even doing this, again?"

Because evil dragon
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 23, 2013, 03:08:44 AM
Crudblud still hasn't replied.  Hmm...what bait to use next.

Hey, Crudblud, it's funny how you apparently don't like this game, and yet you spent all that time and (presumably) money playing the DLC.  You are literally Blanko.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 23, 2013, 12:42:16 PM
Crudblud still hasn't replied.  Hmm...what bait to use next.

Hey, Crudblud, it's funny how you apparently don't like this game, and yet you spent all that time and (presumably) money playing the DLC.  You are literally Blanko.

I received the GOTY edition of F3 as a gift. As for LR, you present some good points, and I have been thinking about my response.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 23, 2013, 01:58:54 PM
But I thought you were a big fan of the franchise!  Shouldn't you have gotten it as soon as it came out?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 23, 2013, 03:51:46 PM
But I thought you were a big fan of the franchise!  Shouldn't you have gotten it as soon as it came out?
If you'd played the previous attempt to convert Fallout into an action game, you wouldn't have been too eager to get it either.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 23, 2013, 07:25:41 PM
So, given the current state of the franchise, F3 was actually an improvement?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Blanko on December 23, 2013, 07:29:57 PM
Crudblud still hasn't replied.  Hmm...what bait to use next.

Hey, Crudblud, it's funny how you apparently don't like this game, and yet you spent all that time and (presumably) money playing the DLC.  You are literally Blanko.

Not true, I spend money on games I never even start playing to begin with.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Blanko on December 23, 2013, 08:48:28 PM
ok

(http://i.imgur.com/bqYrh5R.jpg)
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 23, 2013, 08:56:16 PM
So, given the current state of the franchise, F3 was actually an improvement?
Brotherhood of Steel was just a spin-off, not part of the main series. The original Fallout 3, more commonly known by its codename Van Buren, was ~50% complete in 2003, then Bethesda bought the rights to the franchise and it was canned.

In other words: no.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 23, 2013, 09:21:48 PM
I've tried to play the older Fallouts. Terribly bad by today's standards, really. I've come to expect more than the games give.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 24, 2013, 04:10:45 AM
ok

(http://i.imgur.com/bqYrh5R.jpg)

Stop playing Dark Souls and start playing this, you homofaggot.

So, given the current state of the franchise, F3 was actually an improvement?
Brotherhood of Steel was just a spin-off, not part of the main series. The original Fallout 3, more commonly known by its codename Van Buren, was ~50% complete in 2003, then Bethesda bought the rights to the franchise and it was canned.

In other words: no.

Bro, no.  Van Buren was cancelled because Black Isle was shut down by Interplay, and that happened because the company was almost bankrupt.  Bethesda licensed the rights to make F3 in 2004, and they bought the franchise in 2007.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Blanko on December 24, 2013, 04:13:12 AM
I haven't played Dark Souls in a long time either  :(
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 24, 2013, 05:08:43 AM
Then you have no excuse.  Play NV nao.  Srsly, it's gud.  No cinematic setpieces or anything.

Also, where's Orbis?  Back on the other website he wouldn't shut up about Fallout.  Now we have an official thread and he's nowhere to be found. >o<
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 24, 2013, 10:03:48 AM
So, given the current state of the franchise, F3 was actually an improvement?
Brotherhood of Steel was just a spin-off, not part of the main series. The original Fallout 3, more commonly known by its codename Van Buren, was ~50% complete in 2003, then Bethesda bought the rights to the franchise and it was canned.

In other words: no.

Bro, no.  Van Buren was cancelled because Black Isle was shut down by Interplay, and that happened because the company was almost bankrupt.  Bethesda licensed the rights to make F3 in 2004, and they bought the franchise in 2007.

Well then, perhaps my sources were wrong, in any case that still doesn't make the F3 we got an improvement over the F3 we were originally going to get.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 25, 2013, 03:28:36 AM
I'm guessing you got that idea from the article on Van Buren on that Nukapedia wiki.  It's normally a pretty reliable source, but it's dead wrong on that point.  No, the real culprits behind Fallout's temporary demise were the folks at Titus Software, the same geniuses who gave us Superman for the N64.

In any case, though, I didn't say anything about improvements over hypothetical games that we might have gotten instead.  By that logic, I could argue that Bethesda's F3 was infinitely better than the Call of Fallout game that EA would have been likely to make.  The fact is that the last game in the franchise was that shitty BoS one.  So there.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 25, 2013, 08:36:20 AM
I'm guessing you got that idea from the article on Van Buren on that Fallout wiki, The Vault.  It's normally a pretty reliable source, but it's dead wrong on that point.  No, the real culprits behind Fallout's temporary demise were the folks at Titus Software, the same geniuses who gave us Superman for the N64.

In any case, though, I didn't say anything about improvements over hypothetical games that we might have gotten instead.  By that logic, I could argue that Bethesda's F3 was infinitely better than the Call of Fallout game that EA would have been likely to make.  The fact is that the last game in the franchise was that shitty BoS one.  So there.

Fine, fine... but my dad could beat up your dad

Anyway, I'll see you here again whenever I get around to untangling the lore surrounding LR.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 25, 2013, 05:44:57 PM
(http://oi43.tinypic.com/1zpimj6.jpg)
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 25, 2013, 09:19:05 PM
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/God+Damn+Radscorpions.+seriously+any+help+on+fallout+1_64ada9_3884492.jpg)
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 25, 2013, 10:13:53 PM
Playing Lonesome Road on Very Hard. Saddam's post is relevant. 100 stimpaks.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 26, 2013, 12:30:26 AM
Even Parsifal admits my posts are relevant.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 26, 2013, 02:15:51 AM
And I'm done. Not sure how I feel about that.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 26, 2013, 02:21:43 AM
I have now played all the DLC's, and I reached lvl 50 the moment I entered Ulysses' Temple. I find it sad that 50 is the max level. I will now roam the Mojave for a while and do a some more quests before I face Lanius and tell him to go home.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 26, 2013, 02:25:06 AM
I have now played all the DLC's, and I reached lvl 50 the moment I entered Ulysses' Temple. I find it sad that 50 is the max level. I will now roam the Mojave for a while and do a some more quests before I face Lanius and tell him to go home.

Compare and contrast NV with F3.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on December 26, 2013, 02:40:13 AM
I'm still trying to figure out if Fallout NV had a good story or just a lot of fancy stuff pulled over a load of crap.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 26, 2013, 02:58:50 AM
I have now played all the DLC's, and I reached lvl 50 the moment I entered Ulysses' Temple. I find it sad that 50 is the max level. I will now roam the Mojave for a while and do a some more quests before I face Lanius and tell him to go home.

Compare and contrast NV with F3.
I can not. I haven't played F3 enough to make a comparision. I only exited the vault and went to Megaton, disabled the bomb, and then I stopped playing for reasons I can't remember. I also have no interest in getting it on steam, because GFWL.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 26, 2013, 03:01:17 AM
No.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 26, 2013, 03:14:38 AM
Oh no how horrible
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: beardo on December 26, 2013, 01:36:39 PM
Oh no how horrible
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 28, 2013, 12:28:17 AM
Just wanted to do a quick note on this because lore lore lore. Also, while I tend to agree with a lot of the criticisms proffered by the typical NMA user, I do think they are extremely whiny about it. I think instead of basically saying "Bethesda ruined everything" (which I assure you I have only ever done in jest) we fans of Fallout should be encouraging them to do better, to see where they went wrong and help them get on the right track, and if they don't listen at least we tried.

I've heard that a lot of people hate it for bringing aliens into the Fallout universe, and also because there's some implication that the aliens might have been responsible for the nuclear war.  For example, here's a couple of discussions on the subject:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=987366

http://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/1erk0w/

Fair warning, they're full of smug hipsters circlejerking.

I'm willing to forgive lore problems if I'm having fun, and while MZ is absolute bullshit in terms of lore, it is fun. I think it was the point in the development schedule at which Bethesda just decided to do something that was goofy and entertaining, and in abandoning all pretence of seriousness they actually ended up coming their closest to the original games, even though they were introducing something totally alien (no pun intended) to the series thus far. If they decide to push it in F4 I may be less receptive to it, especially if it's significant to the main story and serves to further the more objectionable implications some people mention in the linked discussions, but I think as a 1-2 hour DLC adventure it was good fun and had the best comedic writing in the whole game—not much of an achievement considering the rest of the game was about as funny as Andrew Dice Clay and even less charming, but it's something.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 28, 2013, 07:17:06 PM
What exactly do you mean when you compare the game's humor (whether positively or negatively) to the original two games?  I agree that F3 has pretty bad comedy for the most part, but it's at least given me a few laughs, which is more than I can say for the first game.  Admittedly, I haven't played a whole lot of it yet, but so far, the only funny thing I've seen is that they actually got MacGyver to voice one of the characters.  I'm not trying to be a sadaam or anything, but where's the humor?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 28, 2013, 08:09:10 PM
What exactly do you mean when you compare the game's humor (whether positively or negatively) to the original two games?  I agree that F3 has pretty bad comedy for the most part, but it's at least given me a few laughs, which is more than I can say for the first game.  Admittedly, I haven't played a whole lot of it yet, but so far, the only funny thing I've seen is that they actually got MacGyver to voice one of the characters.  I'm not trying to be a sadaam or anything, but where's the humor?

I probably should have specified F2 when talking about the humour, as that's where most of the comedic writing is. F1 has some jokes, but overall it's played quite straight.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 09:54:43 PM
What exactly do you mean when you compare the game's humor (whether positively or negatively) to the original two games?  I agree that F3 has pretty bad comedy for the most part, but it's at least given me a few laughs, which is more than I can say for the first game.  Admittedly, I haven't played a whole lot of it yet, but so far, the only funny thing I've seen is that they actually got MacGyver to voice one of the characters.  I'm not trying to be a sadaam or anything, but where's the humor?
I was wondering the same thing.

For F3, I thought the wacky wasteland stuff was pretty funny. None of the dialogue made me go bananas but it was still a fairly humorous game.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on December 28, 2013, 11:24:04 PM
I don't think the stiff quality all of Bethesda's games have helps with any of the humour they try to inject into them.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 28, 2013, 11:49:21 PM
I don't think the stiff quality all of Bethesda's games have helps with any of the humour they try to inject into them.
I'm not sure how you mean stiff in this context.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 29, 2013, 02:37:40 AM
What exactly do you mean when you compare the game's humor (whether positively or negatively) to the original two games?  I agree that F3 has pretty bad comedy for the most part, but it's at least given me a few laughs, which is more than I can say for the first game.  Admittedly, I haven't played a whole lot of it yet, but so far, the only funny thing I've seen is that they actually got MacGyver to voice one of the characters.  I'm not trying to be a sadaam or anything, but where's the humor?

I probably should have specified F2 when talking about the humour, as that's where most of the comedic writing is. F1 has some jokes, but overall it's played quite straight.

Then perhaps I should play F2 first.  Is it easier to get into?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Particle Person on December 29, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
No. They're pretty similar, mechanically.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 29, 2013, 03:23:05 AM
I don't really have an issue with the mechanics.  It's actually the time limit that's driving me nuts.  I don't know how long it "translates" into in real time, nor how long it's going to take me at a minimum to find the water chip, and I don't know if I'm supposed to be hustling the whole time because every minute counts, or if there's no rush and I have enough time to take it slowly and explore the world.  In any case, the uncertainty won't let me relax and enjoy the game.  Are there mods to get rid of it?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on December 29, 2013, 10:14:50 AM
What exactly do you mean when you compare the game's humor (whether positively or negatively) to the original two games?  I agree that F3 has pretty bad comedy for the most part, but it's at least given me a few laughs, which is more than I can say for the first game.  Admittedly, I haven't played a whole lot of it yet, but so far, the only funny thing I've seen is that they actually got MacGyver to voice one of the characters.  I'm not trying to be a sadaam or anything, but where's the humor?

I probably should have specified F2 when talking about the humour, as that's where most of the comedic writing is. F1 has some jokes, but overall it's played quite straight.

Then perhaps I should play F2 first.  Is it easier to get into?

If you're already a ways into F1 I'd stick with it, in my experience it definitely grows on you the further you get and it opens up considerably once you get the water chip. Besides, while it isn't necessary to play them in order, I think the emotional impact of revisiting the old locations and seeing how they've changed is lessened if you don't know how the first game plays out. If you are going to jump ahead to F2, be sure to get killap's restoration patch (http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?201155-Fallout-2-Restoration-Project-2-3-%28Unofficial-Expansion%29), it restores tons of cut content and fixes some bugs, generally providing a better overall experience, though you still have to put up with the shitty tutorial level Black Isle was forced to put in.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 31, 2013, 06:56:09 AM
Thanks for that, broseph.  Also, I have now completed all the DLC for F3!  Hooray!

Point Lookout was my favorite, mainly because it was the only one that really felt as open-ended as an expansion to the game should.  I liked the location and the creepy atmosphere, the quests were interesting, and the goofy conflict between Desmond and Calvert was pretty funny at times, in almost the same way that OWB was.  Yes, whoever voiced Desmond very obviously wasn't British, and that was a constant distraction, but I still liked the jokes.  My biggest problem with this add-on was how absurdly overpowered the enemies - that is to say, the tribals and swampfolk - were, and especially the way that it makes zero logical sense in relation to the story.  These guys are just ordinary humans.  They have no special powers, no training or conditioning, no armor, and very primitive weapons.  It shouldn't take several blasts to the head from a shotgun to bring one down, and their shitty knives and axes shouldn't automatically bypass my DR to do ridiculous amounts of damage.  What a lazy way to increase the difficulty of a game.  No, don't bother designing new, challenging enemies, just give the old ones a paint job and crank up their stats.  It's such bullshit.

I really wanted to like Mothership Zeta, after everything I had heard about it.  And to a degree, I did like it.  There were cool new weapons, a great new location, and even some fairly decent characters.  When I saw that little girl, I feared the worst (Bethesda really needs to just stop putting kids in their games.  Granted, it's always tricky to portray children in fiction, but Bethesda seems to be especially bad at it), but I actually liked even her.  But despite all that going for it, it quickly settled into the tired routine of one long, tedious dungeon crawl.  I had hoped for something like The Great Escape, putting more of an emphasis on planning the escape using skills and dialogue than actual combat.  It would have made a nice break from the relentless action of the rest of the game, and directly interacting with the aliens would have naturally lent itself to some great comedy.  But no, it barely starts and POW POW POW GET READY TO SHOOT STUFF FOR THE NEXT THREE HOURS!
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: rooster on December 31, 2013, 12:13:44 PM
Aww yiss, another win for Point Lookout.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 01, 2014, 02:58:03 PM
Oh yeah, and then there was Broken Steel.  I am in agreement with Cruddy on this one on how utterly pointless it feels.  I'm all in favor of tying up loose ends from the main story, but not coming up with new problems out of nowhere that don't have an obvious logical connection with the main story.  Retconning that bullshit ending was certainly a good move, and raising the level cap was cool too, but this add-on really had nothing else going for it.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on January 01, 2014, 05:22:47 PM
I am in agreement with Cruddy on this one
O wayward sadaam, hope for thou there yet be!  :-*
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on January 01, 2014, 10:38:58 PM
Could anyone powerful enough that is bothered move all these posts into a Fallout thread? Or just change the title of the thread?
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Snupes on January 02, 2014, 07:44:29 AM
Sure thang, bro and behold. I dunno if you wanna change the opening post to reflekt the change or something so that's up to you. :D
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on January 02, 2014, 02:39:52 PM
I will, thank you :D
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 02, 2014, 03:41:41 PM
snupes is abusing her mod powers
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 02, 2014, 07:04:55 PM
Could anyone powerful enough that is bothered move all these posts into a Fallout thread? Or just change the title of the thread?
Just so you know, you can rename threads yourself. The subject of the first post is also the subject of the thread :)
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Lemon on January 02, 2014, 07:23:15 PM
Could anyone powerful enough that is bothered move all these posts into a Fallout thread? Or just change the title of the thread?
Just so you know, you can rename threads yourself. The subject of the first post is also the subject of the thread :)

I didn't know that changed it, thanks :)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on January 03, 2014, 06:30:55 PM
Moriarty has an Irish accent. Odd.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 03, 2014, 08:11:51 PM
Moriarty has an Irish accent. Odd.

What's odd is that there's an Irishman around, not that the Irishman has an Irish accent.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on January 03, 2014, 08:14:25 PM
Moriarty has an Irish accent. Odd.

What's odd is that there's an Irishman around, not that the Irishman has an Irish accent.

Does he ever say he's Irish? It might just be an accent.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on January 03, 2014, 09:25:19 PM
Moriarty has an Irish accent. Odd.

What's odd is that there's an Irishman around, not that the Irishman has an Irish accent.

Does he ever say he's Irish? It might just be an accent.

Moriarty is an Irish name, so he is either Irish or has adopted the name and accent to distinguish himself. If the latter, this might be inspired (in terms of design) by Loxley from F1, who models himself after Robin Hood, going so far as to adopt a hokey English accent.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on January 03, 2014, 09:37:03 PM
Moriarty has an Irish accent. Odd.

What's odd is that there's an Irishman around, not that the Irishman has an Irish accent.

Does he ever say he's Irish? It might just be an accent.

Moriarty is an Irish name, so he is either Irish or has adopted the name and accent to distinguish himself. If the latter, this might be inspired (in terms of design) by Loxley from F1, who models himself after Robin Hood, going so far as to adopt a hokey English accent.

The latter wouldn't surprise me. People in Fallout are odd. What I meant, though, was more along the lines that his family could have been Irish before the Great War.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 05, 2014, 03:07:25 AM
According to this, he is indeed an immigrant:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Tenpenny_Tower_terminal_entries#Locations

Lol:

https://www.change.org/petitions/bethesda-softworks-llc-announce-fallout-4

Yes, I'm sure Bethesda is totally going to deviate from whatever marketing plan they've formed because now there's a formal petition asking them to.  Also, I have no idea what the author is talking about with that leak being "intentional."  Supposed leak, I should clarify.  The fact that Bethesda still hasn't confirmed that it's legit seems to indicate that it's another hoax, and that the fanbase is even more gullible than I thought.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on January 07, 2014, 05:32:18 AM
Where ever it may take place, I hope they're making i on a new and better engine instead of just a slightly modified Skyrim engine, and I would like to see the game world to be bigger and more to scale with it's real-life counterpart. It would be massive, but awesome. But this is Bethesda, so I guess I should just keep dreaming.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on January 07, 2014, 07:14:41 AM
I would like to see Bethesda use an engine that doesn't suck in genral. That'd be a nice deviation.

Also, I don't really understand people who start petitions for every little thing. Sometimes it makes some sense, like fans wanting to show a company there's enough interest in a game to warrant its localization or something, but stuff like this...yeah.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on January 07, 2014, 05:47:05 PM
If I was going to start a Fallout petition, it'd be asking Bethesda to give Obsidian the rights to all the Van Buren materials. Sure, they're already slated to co-develop Wasteland 2 with inXile (which is going to be like a real Black Isle reunion, unlike the practically in-name-only team Interplay recently started*) but man, Van Buren!

*Maybe Project V13 won't suck. Not holding my breath, but there's a chance.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 07, 2014, 05:50:10 PM
Am I the only one who loves Fallout 3 and likes Bethesda in general?

Yeah the engine is terrible, but I always thought the awkward faces and movement was part of the charm.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on January 07, 2014, 05:50:48 PM
Yes, you're the only one.

The only one in the world.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 07, 2014, 07:11:05 PM
Am I the only one who loves Fallout 3 and likes Bethesda in general?

Yeah the engine is terrible, but I always thought the awkward faces and movement was part of the charm.

Of course you're not the only one.  The mainstream gaming press, for example, loves Bethesda.  I've often seen articles describing them as "one of the best" developers out there.  Stop laughing, I'm being quite serious.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on January 07, 2014, 07:25:58 PM
Am I the only one who loves Fallout 3 and likes Bethesda in general?

Yeah the engine is terrible, but I always thought the awkward faces and movement was part of the charm.

No, I'm pretty sure most people agree with you, in fact most people seem to think F3 is a big improvement over the original games. And there's no end of people positively gushing about Bethesda.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on January 07, 2014, 07:31:05 PM
Guys, no. She is literally the only person who thinks Fallout 3 was good at all.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on January 07, 2014, 07:32:31 PM
Guys, no. She is literally the only person who thinks Fallout 3 was good at all.
Oh how I wish that were true.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 07, 2014, 07:57:01 PM
If F3 wasn't good, explain all those publications calling it GOTY.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on January 07, 2014, 08:01:08 PM
They were all lying. They also lied about a lot of other games.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 08, 2014, 02:58:16 AM
Um, I meant here on these forums...

F3 is a huge improvement to the original series. I can't even get more than a half hour into that poo pile known as the original Fallout.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 08, 2014, 04:15:26 AM
Um, I meant here on these forums...

F3 is a huge improvement to the original series. I can't even get more than a half hour into that poo pile known as the original Fallout.

You just don't get it.  It's over your head.  Go back to Larry the Cable Guy.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on January 08, 2014, 07:44:15 AM
Saddam and Blanko are so edgy and anti-establishment.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on January 08, 2014, 07:45:39 AM
Fuck the industry.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 08, 2014, 12:17:11 PM
2kewl4meh
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 13, 2014, 03:23:38 AM
One thing I'm hoping for in particular is a big improvement in the voice acting.  Bethesda seems to be really lazy in that department.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on January 13, 2014, 10:36:53 AM
One thing I'm hoping for in particular is a big improvement in the voice acting.  Bethesda seems to be really lazy in that department.

Do you mean the quality of the acting or the quantity of actors? It's a staple that they race each other to shatter the illusion first in each new TES or Fallout game, but I'm wondering how much money and time Bethesda actually sinks in to v/o as is. Their special NPCs can be well voiced at times, Max von Sydow was pretty awesome as Esbern, and we already talked about Malcolm McDowell's highly entertaining President Eden, unfortunately they probably can't afford to populate the entire game with unique performances from people who can actually act. Maybe they should focus on casting people who can do lots of different voices, instead of Jennifer Hale types who all do the same voice no matter who they're supposed to be? Of course, having said that, I do wonder if Bethesda even tells the "talent" what their character is when they give them a set of lines to read.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on January 13, 2014, 11:50:32 AM
Yeah the engine is terrible, but I always thought the awkward faces and movement was part of the charm.

Really? It's just horribly painful for me. I never feel like I'm interacting with a real character, I always feel like I'm being shoehorned into some weird little box to listen to someone babble out a poorly-written script with horrible acting (most of the time). Way too many of the voiceovers sound like a cold reading, like they're just now seeing their lines, or maybe got a few minutes to think about them. The stiff animations, though...*shudder*...I can never take the games seriously as "exciting" or "dynamic" for that reason. Everything's so stiff and awkward and feels so slipshod, and it just makes the whole experience really 'meh'. That's why I do not think Skyrim is a very good game and never want to play their games more than once.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2014, 12:06:19 PM
Yeah the engine is terrible, but I always thought the awkward faces and movement was part of the charm.

Really? It's just horribly painful for me. I never feel like I'm interacting with a real character, I always feel like I'm being shoehorned into some weird little box to listen to someone babble out a poorly-written script with horrible acting (most of the time). Way too many of the voiceovers sound like a cold reading, like they're just now seeing their lines, or maybe got a few minutes to think about them. The stiff animations, though...*shudder*...I can never take the games seriously as "exciting" or "dynamic" for that reason. Everything's so stiff and awkward and feels so slipshod, and it just makes the whole experience really 'meh'. That's why I do not think Skyrim is a very good game and never want to play their games more than once.
I'm not picky. If the writing is good and the game playable than any stiffness doesn't bother me. I think they make fun games.

The voice acting does bother me a little though.

Maybe it's just my level of expectation though. It's a video game, not real life. Games with impeccable NPC writing and animation usually don't give you a lot of freedom in exploring the world so it's just a sacrifice I accept.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on January 13, 2014, 06:09:22 PM
Yeah, I'm usually pretty forgiving as well, but I dunno, I think they're particularly bad at it. A good example of it done right is Dragon's Dogma. I keep getting absolutely entranced by that game; I think it's better than Skyrim on almost every level (minus the insane amount of stuff you can do in Skyrim) and it doesn't feel as shoddy as Skyrim's world does. That said, there are considerably less characters, and the smaller game probably meant they had enough in the budget to hire more than one male and one female local voice actor, but still.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2014, 06:21:45 PM
Yeah, I'm usually pretty forgiving as well, but I dunno, I think they're particularly bad at it. A good example of it done right is Dragon's Dogma. I keep getting absolutely entranced by that game; I think it's better than Skyrim on almost every level (minus the insane amount of stuff you can do in Skyrim) and it doesn't feel as shoddy as Skyrim's world does. That said, there are considerably less characters, and the smaller game probably meant they had enough in the budget to hire more than one male and one female local voice actor, but still.
Another thing is that Bethesda games are also heavily moddable. They even give the tool set they use to create the world.

But aside from that, I love big worlds with an almost endless amount of little side quests and dungeons to explore and I generally dislike JRPGs and I really dislike survival horror games.
And c'mon, Bethesda has more than one male and one female voice actor. Let's not exaggerate.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 13, 2014, 07:05:55 PM
That's why I do not think Skyrim is a very good game and never want to play their games more than once.

better than Skyrim on almost every level...doesn't feel as shoddy as Skyrim's world does

B-B-B-Blanko?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on January 13, 2014, 07:27:17 PM
P-p-p-popular opinions?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 13, 2014, 08:34:15 PM
You have no popular opinions, Blanko.  Nobody agrees with you.  Nobody likes you.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on January 13, 2014, 08:48:21 PM
sadaam
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2014, 10:23:43 PM
You have no popular opinions, Blanko.  Nobody agrees with you.  Nobody likes you.
No, everyone agrees with Blanko's harsh criticisms. Only a minority enjoy Bethesda.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 15, 2014, 08:58:57 PM
Anyway, going back to the voice acting, I agree with Crudblud and Snupes.  With the obvious exceptions of the roles for the well-known actors, it seems like Bethesda's casting process consists of making some calls to their "usuals," a bunch of stock voice actors to give stock performances for dozens of characters and thousands of lines.  It's not so much penny-pinching as it is lazy.  BAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!! >o<
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 15, 2014, 09:23:15 PM
Anyway, going back to the voice acting, I agree with Crudblud and Snupes.  With the obvious exceptions of the roles for the well-known actors, it seems like Bethesda's casting process consists of making some calls to their "usuals," a bunch of stock voice actors to give stock performances for dozens of characters and thousands of lines.  It's not so much penny-pinching as it is lazy.  BAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!! >o<
Yes, that is the only thing I actually have a problem with.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on January 15, 2014, 09:59:45 PM
Just be glad they didn't use the same voice actors as they did in Oblivion.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 16, 2014, 06:18:35 PM
They did, actually.  At least a couple of them.  In particular, there's Wes Johnson - you might not know him by name, but he's the guy who voiced the male Imperials in Oblivion.  He voiced a handful of characters in F3 and Skyrim, and he was certainly able to put on some different voices for them.  So I'd guess that the monotony probably has more to do with the actors usually not getting much context or character for each line than them simply being untalented.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 16, 2014, 06:37:11 PM
There's a voice actor they use in almost all of their games and he was in some old Disney/Nickelodeon movie. I'm not sure who he is but I recognize his voice and it drives me crazy every time.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 16, 2014, 06:43:06 PM
Who did he voice?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on January 16, 2014, 06:46:23 PM
Who did he voice?
He does a lot of little extras. I can't think of any important characters.
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 25, 2014, 02:22:24 AM
I don't really have an issue with the mechanics.  It's actually the time limit that's driving me nuts.  I don't know how long it "translates" into in real time, nor how long it's going to take me at a minimum to find the water chip, and I don't know if I'm supposed to be hustling the whole time because every minute counts, or if there's no rush and I have enough time to take it slowly and explore the world.  In any case, the uncertainty won't let me relax and enjoy the game.  Are there mods to get rid of it?

I was hoping for a response.  What can I do? :(
Title: Re: Survivor2299
Post by: Crudblud on January 25, 2014, 12:11:31 PM
I don't really have an issue with the mechanics.  It's actually the time limit that's driving me nuts.  I don't know how long it "translates" into in real time, nor how long it's going to take me at a minimum to find the water chip, and I don't know if I'm supposed to be hustling the whole time because every minute counts, or if there's no rush and I have enough time to take it slowly and explore the world.  In any case, the uncertainty won't let me relax and enjoy the game.  Are there mods to get rid of it?

I was hoping for a response.  What can I do? :(

Play faster. But seriously: don't worry about the time limit, it's there to make you feel tense but you actually have ample time to get the water chip unless you are literally walking in circles for hours on end in the fast travel screen.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 05, 2014, 04:01:25 AM
Hey, Cruddy, on the subject of stuff from the first two games being dragged into F3, what did you think of the quest that continued (or possibly concluded) Harold's story?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on February 05, 2014, 04:36:07 AM
After finally getting back to playing the game, I have delivered a water chip to the Vault!  Huzzah!

No, you didn't. Everyone died.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on February 05, 2014, 09:24:18 PM
Big guns, drugs and a stealth boy.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 05, 2014, 11:56:28 PM
How the fuck do I kill deathclaws?
Snipe from a place they can't reach.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 06, 2014, 01:40:10 AM
I should probably clarify that I'm talking about the original game here.  Deathclaws in the later titles are trivial in comparison.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on February 06, 2014, 02:24:41 AM
I don't understand what would be trivial about something the one hits you regardless. Unless you're playing your games on cheesy mode.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on February 06, 2014, 03:02:11 AM
Are you trying to Vongeo again?

still no one gets swathes brutal with tears
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 06, 2014, 04:05:58 AM
I don't understand what would be trivial about something the one hits you regardless. Unless you're playing your games on cheesy mode.
Yeah, stfu sadaam. We don't need your snarky elitism.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2014, 03:36:13 AM
So it turns out that I needed that patch to be able to play F2 in the first place.  Weird.  Anyway, here goes.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 11, 2014, 04:13:46 AM
So it turns out that I needed that patch to be able to play F2 in the first place.  Weird.  Anyway, here goes.

Give me a kiss to build a dream on,
And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss,
Sweetheart, I ask no more than this:
A kiss to build a dream on.


gl;hf

Also I actually forgot that Harold quest was in F3 until you brought it up. I seem to recall it being morally conflicting on a level beyond most other things in the game, but my concern is that I was conflicted because it was Harold, not because the quest was well done or anything. I can't really say for sure because, again, I had forgotten it was in there.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 15, 2014, 03:39:04 PM
I've really fucked up with making my characters.  You should have blurted out advice, Crudblud.  I am disappoint.  Time to start the game over. >:(
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 16, 2014, 04:26:32 AM
I've really fucked up with making my characters.  You should have blurted out advice, Crudblud.  I am disappoint.  Time to start the game over. >:(
I just assumed, since you had beaten the first game, you would understand what to look for in a character build to some extent, therefore would understand that the premades are not any good. They're good if you are super experienced and looking for a challenge, but for a first timer, definitely not. Out of curiosity, how far did you get?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rama Set on February 16, 2014, 12:27:56 PM
Who the fuck ever uses pre-mades?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 16, 2014, 12:59:24 PM
Lazy people.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2014, 06:33:58 PM
I've really fucked up with making my characters.  You should have blurted out advice, Crudblud.  I am disappoint.  Time to start the game over. >:(
I just assumed, since you had beaten the first game, you would understand what to look for in a character build to some extent, therefore would understand that the premades are not any good. They're good if you are super experienced and looking for a challenge, but for a first timer, definitely not. Out of curiosity, how far did you get?

Well, I didn't beat the first game.  That's why I said "characters," plural.  I chose a shitty premade in that one too, and it only slowly began dawning on me just how much I had fucked myself as I progressed further and further into the game.  I finally gave up when I started getting my ass handed to me by deathclaws and nightkin.  I had explored pretty much the whole map and completed a fair number of sidequests, though, so I considered myself ready to move on to F2 - in which I had really only just arrived at Klamath when I realized I had made the same mistake.  It's the fact that I'll have to restart the first one that particularly irritates me.

It's all Bethesda's fault, of course.  The loose, "jack of all trades" roleplaying that they encourage in their games definitely isn't an option in these titles, and that threw me off.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 16, 2014, 06:38:02 PM
Yeah, of course...
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 16, 2014, 08:01:59 PM
Bethesda is responsible for every bad thing that happens with video games.

You should play these games, Blanko.  Srsly, you'd like them.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on February 16, 2014, 10:39:50 PM
Blanko [...] you'd like them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 16, 2014, 10:43:01 PM
Ha ha ha, I get it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 17, 2014, 01:46:02 AM
You too, Snupes.  Give it another try.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on February 17, 2014, 10:52:00 PM
I am not as patient as you when it comes to getting a hang of those controls and playstyle. :[
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 17, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
The controls aren't that bad.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 18, 2014, 12:07:48 AM
The controls aren't that bad.
Yes. Yes, they are.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 05:21:53 AM
You click where you want to go and on objects you want to interact with... What's so bad?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 18, 2014, 05:33:10 AM
You click where you want to go and on objects you want to interact with... What's so bad?
That's just the problem, in F3 you click on things and they die. That's quality gameplay right there.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 05:34:23 AM
omgomg
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 18, 2014, 12:19:42 PM
You click where you want to go and on objects you want to interact with... What's so bad?
That's just the problem, in F3 you click on things and they die. That's quality gameplay right there.
Maybe if you have the gameplay on easy. and I play FO on the 360, I hate shooters on PC.

And controls are more than that. I had to figure out how to bring up a map, look at my items, equip items, how the combat worked period. Granted, it's not like it took too long but it's all awkward and plain unenjoyable. Factored with having zero attachment to the people in my vault due to a weak and nonexistent start to the story, I just gave up.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 01:44:21 PM
I play FO on the 360, I hate shooters on PC.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you say things like that?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 18, 2014, 02:03:59 PM
The controls aren't that bad.
Yes. Yes, they are.

I started playing F2 a few years ago and got killed in the vault by a radroach simply because I couldn't figure out the controls and the thought of reading through that tome of an instruction book sent shivers down my spine. I gave up after about 20 minutes.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 18, 2014, 02:13:05 PM
I play FO on the 360, I hate shooters on PC.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you say things like that?

Oh, no.  Stop it right now.  We're not having this argument again.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 02:14:12 PM
I play FO on the 360, I hate shooters on PC.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you say things like that?

Oh, no.  Stop it right now.  We're not having this argument again.
lol, u mad?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 18, 2014, 02:39:00 PM
I play FO on the 360, I hate shooters on PC.
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you say things like that?
Don't talk to me PC elitist whore.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 02:39:27 PM
Ha ha ha.

Preferring the objectively superior controls = elitism. You heard it, people.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 18, 2014, 02:41:24 PM
The controls aren't that bad.
Yes. Yes, they are.

I started playing F2 a few years ago and got killed in the vault by a radroach simply because I couldn't figure out the controls and the thought of reading through that tome of an instruction book sent shivers down my spine. I gave up after about 20 minutes.

wow

It is literally the same with every other shooter. You don't have to use VATS. And I believe like most modern games it tells you on the screen how to pull up your inventory and how to use VATS.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 02:45:23 PM
(http://sergeantsykes.blog.com/files/2009/10/fallout1.gif)
How do I opened map?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 18, 2014, 04:27:34 PM
The controls aren't that bad.
Yes. Yes, they are.

I started playing F2 a few years ago and got killed in the vault by a radroach simply because I couldn't figure out the controls and the thought of reading through that tome of an instruction book sent shivers down my spine. I gave up after about 20 minutes.

wow

It is literally the same with every other shooter. You don't have to use VATS. And I believe like most modern games it tells you on the screen how to pull up your inventory and how to use VATS.

He's talking about F2.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 18, 2014, 05:15:01 PM
(http://sergeantsykes.blog.com/files/2009/10/fallout1.gif)
How do I opened map?
huhuhuh this isnt a game its a GAYme lol get it?!?!??! im gonna play fallout 3 coz its soooooo epick!!!1 huhuhuhuhuh green tint is soooo coooool!!1!!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 18, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
The controls aren't that bad.
Yes. Yes, they are.

I started playing F2 a few years ago and got killed in the vault by a radroach simply because I couldn't figure out the controls and the thought of reading through that tome of an instruction book sent shivers down my spine. I gave up after about 20 minutes.

wow

It is literally the same with every other shooter. You don't have to use VATS. And I believe like most modern games it tells you on the screen how to pull up your inventory and how to use VATS.

Fallout 2, not 3.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 18, 2014, 05:59:47 PM
>mfw rooster
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 18, 2014, 06:57:33 PM
Disregarding that, you guys are too mean to rooster sometimes.  It seems like she's criticizing the interface more than the actual controls, and yeah, the interface is pretty bad.  You get used to it, sure, but it's far more clunky and complicated than it needs to be.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 18, 2014, 07:04:29 PM
But it's really simple. You have interface buttons for everything you ever need to access. You'd literally have to have never touched a CRPG before to find it even mildly confusing.

Hell, it's much quicker than the modern style of piling everything under submenus.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 18, 2014, 07:13:12 PM
Yeah.
Map in Fallout. Click Map button.
Map in Fallout 3/New Vegas. Open Pip-Boy. Click Data button. Click Map.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 18, 2014, 07:21:38 PM
But it's really simple. You have interface buttons for everything you ever need to access. You'd literally have to have never touched a CRPG before to find it even mildly confusing.

Hell, it's much quicker than the modern style of piling everything under submenus.

You've begun playing it?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 18, 2014, 07:24:48 PM
But it's really simple. You have interface buttons for everything you ever need to access. You'd literally have to have never touched a CRPG before to find it even mildly confusing.

Hell, it's much quicker than the modern style of piling everything under submenus.

You've begun playing it?

Yes. Crudblud and beardo told me to get the restoration patch though, so I may have to start over.

I didn't get very far yet. I killed some giant rats and scorpions. The game so far has seemed very intuitive and straightforward, I don't see what's confusing about it at all.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on February 18, 2014, 11:26:59 PM
It's been long enough that I don't remember exactly why I hated the controls, but I remember hating how horribly slow and awkwardly moving around was. It probably doesn't help that I prefer moving with a joystick/arrow keys (preferably joystick, wasd and arrow keys are shit) than clicking where I want to go. Maybe when I play and quit soon I'll remember why.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 01:25:06 AM
The controls aren't that bad.
Yes. Yes, they are.

I started playing F2 a few years ago and got killed in the vault by a radroach simply because I couldn't figure out the controls and the thought of reading through that tome of an instruction book sent shivers down my spine. I gave up after about 20 minutes.

wow

It is literally the same with every other shooter. You don't have to use VATS. And I believe like most modern games it tells you on the screen how to pull up your inventory and how to use VATS.

Fallout 2, not 3.
My bad, totally skimmed that. I just assumed you meant the new games.

But Saddam hit it. So it's not literally the map as I couldn't remember the screen when I made that post. But the interface is awkward and it takes awhile to get used to moving around and fighting. And also there was no story other than, hey get this water chip for these people you won't meet.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 01:30:02 AM
Also, I do play CRPGs. All of them are better than the original Fallout games.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 02:15:50 AM
So anyway, I was completely distracted today so sorry again Ghost.

Maybe I'll try Fallout 1 again to see if the story picks up and if there's anything to all this hipster fuss.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 19, 2014, 07:19:46 AM
I think this whole "forming an opinion of the game based on the first five minutes" system of criticism is a pretty good idea.

Fallout 3: Character creation. 3/10

New Vegas: Chandler shot me and then character creation. 4/10

Fallout 1: Why isn't this FPS and why am I not being spoonfed backstory like crazy? What's a role playing game? -10/10

Fallout 2: Poor decision making results in game over? -10/10
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 12:14:16 PM
If you spend that much time on character creation then sure. I can see it getting annoying.

But if a game also doesn't draw you in with any kind of good story or environment then it also sucks.

And shouldn't character creation take awhile for a good RPG? That's just kind of standard really. The first Fallout didn't seem like too much of an RPG in the first 5 minutes. More like a point and click rat fighting game.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 19, 2014, 12:19:23 PM
Would you prefer Deathclaws right from the start?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 12:24:28 PM
Would you prefer Deathclaws right from the start?
Yes.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 19, 2014, 12:35:21 PM
You exit the Vault.
You're level 1.
Your weapon is a 10 mm pistol.
Three wild Deathclaws appears and charges at you.
What do you do?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 12:50:28 PM
You exit the Vault.
You're level 1.
Your weapon is a 10 mm pistol.
Three wild Deathclaws appears and charges at you.
What do you do?
Throw away pistol and use fists.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 19, 2014, 01:53:27 PM
You punch at the nearest Deathclaw.
You miss.
The Deathclaw attacks you with his claws.
You are near death.
The other two Deathclaws comes closer.
What do you do?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rama Set on February 19, 2014, 02:08:50 PM
Wonder why I am playing the Fallout edition of Zork.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 02:47:08 PM
You punch at the nearest Deathclaw.
You miss.
The Deathclaw attacks you with his claws.
You are near death.
The other two Deathclaws comes closer.
What do you do?
Cast magic missile.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 19, 2014, 03:03:44 PM
The game crashes. Start over.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 03:10:36 PM
The game crashes. Start over.
Damn. So close.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 19, 2014, 03:16:23 PM
This insolence needs to stop and it needs to stop right now.  You are making a mockery of this website with your behavior.  You are a complete disgrace.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 19, 2014, 03:47:36 PM
If you spend that much time on character creation then sure. I can see it getting annoying.

But if a game also doesn't draw you in with any kind of good story or environment then it also sucks.

And shouldn't character creation take awhile for a good RPG? That's just kind of standard really. The first Fallout didn't seem like too much of an RPG in the first 5 minutes. More like a point and click rat fighting game.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to say. Is it the mark of a good RPG to spend time on character creation or is it in fact crappy if it takes more than five minutes?

As for F1, Vault 13 is only a place to begin, not the game in full, there's plenty of story if you allow the game a little time to get rolling, a large chunk of it comes from the large cast of characters you meet out in the world. If you're looking for a big attention grabbing thing right away, it doesn't have that, what it does have is a world rebuilding itself and lots of stuff to do to help or hinder its progress, ultimately these combine to offer rather a large story surrounding the fate of the future NCR. If you judge it to be a bad game on the first five minutes alone, that's your problem.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 04:12:07 PM
If you spend that much time on character creation then sure. I can see it getting annoying.

But if a game also doesn't draw you in with any kind of good story or environment then it also sucks.

And shouldn't character creation take awhile for a good RPG? That's just kind of standard really. The first Fallout didn't seem like too much of an RPG in the first 5 minutes. More like a point and click rat fighting game.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to say. Is it the mark of a good RPG to spend time on character creation or is it in fact crappy if it takes more than five minutes?

As for F1, Vault 13 is only a place to begin, not the game in full, there's plenty of story if you allow the game a little time to get rolling, a large chunk of it comes from the large cast of characters you meet out in the world. If you're looking for a big attention grabbing thing right away, it doesn't have that, what it does have is a world rebuilding itself and lots of stuff to do to help or hinder its progress, ultimately these combine to offer rather a large story surrounding the fate of the future NCR. If you judge it to be a bad game on the first five minutes alone, that's your problem.
First, we can stop assuming I made a judgment off 5 minutes. I played for about 20. I made it to a vault in the east and experienced several crappy battle sequences. If the story gets better great, however I'm sure the combat remains terrible. The only person I talked to was a caravan trader. Yay. They could have at least started you off inside the vault rather than outside which makes it seem like they're discouraging any opening story.

Second, yes it is the sign of a good RPG to spend time on character creation. Usually, I know what I want and it doesn't take too long for me on modern RPGs simply because they're not as thorough as the older ones. If you're spending too much time creating your face then you should remind yourself that you'll never look at it and it doesn't matter. Remind me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the original Fallout ask you to pick a character with a backstory? I thought that was weird. I would rather they feed me a backstory through dialogue with NPCs, but whatever.

It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point. I was just wondering when. Then again people really love FFVII and I never could get into that.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 19, 2014, 08:29:29 PM
The only person I talked to was a caravan trader.

Incorrect, you speak to Kenneth Mars right at the beginning.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 08:45:19 PM
The only person I talked to was a caravan trader.

Incorrect, you speak to Kenneth Mars right at the beginning.
Right. The guy who just kinda talks at you and pushes you out the vault.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 19, 2014, 08:50:27 PM
It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point.

??????????????????????????????????????
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 08:51:39 PM
It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point.

??????????????????????????????????????
Not sure what you're questioning...
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 19, 2014, 08:56:25 PM
It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point.

??????????????????????????????????????
Not sure what you're questioning...

Bad games never get high ratings, apparently.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 09:00:41 PM
It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point.

??????????????????????????????????????
Not sure what you're questioning...

Bad games never get high ratings, apparently.
You hate everything, so I can see how you're confused.
I find high rated games to be generally enjoyable in some way. Especially since I love this genre and the new Fallout games, I'm sad I haven't enjoyed this one yet. Which is why I'll try again.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on February 19, 2014, 09:02:50 PM
It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point.

??????????????????????????????????????
Not sure what you're questioning...

Bad games never get high ratings, apparently.
You hate everything, so I can see how you're confused.
I find high rated games to be generally enjoyable in some way. Especially since I love this genre and the new Fallout games, I'm sad I haven't enjoyed this one yet. Which is why I'll try again.

But maybe it's high rated because of its gameplay mechanics, which you've already demonstrated not to like.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 09:30:01 PM
It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point.

??????????????????????????????????????
Not sure what you're questioning...

Bad games never get high ratings, apparently.
You hate everything, so I can see how you're confused.
I find high rated games to be generally enjoyable in some way. Especially since I love this genre and the new Fallout games, I'm sad I haven't enjoyed this one yet. Which is why I'll try again.

But maybe it's high rated because of its gameplay mechanics, which you've already demonstrated not to like.
Nah, it looks like it's for the writing and style. It also apparently has one of the top best endings.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 19, 2014, 09:39:54 PM
If you spend that much time on character creation then sure. I can see it getting annoying.

But if a game also doesn't draw you in with any kind of good story or environment then it also sucks.

And shouldn't character creation take awhile for a good RPG? That's just kind of standard really. The first Fallout didn't seem like too much of an RPG in the first 5 minutes. More like a point and click rat fighting game.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to say. Is it the mark of a good RPG to spend time on character creation or is it in fact crappy if it takes more than five minutes?

As for F1, Vault 13 is only a place to begin, not the game in full, there's plenty of story if you allow the game a little time to get rolling, a large chunk of it comes from the large cast of characters you meet out in the world. If you're looking for a big attention grabbing thing right away, it doesn't have that, what it does have is a world rebuilding itself and lots of stuff to do to help or hinder its progress, ultimately these combine to offer rather a large story surrounding the fate of the future NCR. If you judge it to be a bad game on the first five minutes alone, that's your problem.
First, we can stop assuming I made a judgment off 5 minutes. I played for about 20. I made it to a vault in the east and experienced several crappy battle sequences. If the story gets better great, however I'm sure the combat remains terrible. The only person I talked to was a caravan trader. Yay. They could have at least started you off inside the vault rather than outside which makes it seem like they're discouraging any opening story.

Second, yes it is the sign of a good RPG to spend time on character creation. Usually, I know what I want and it doesn't take too long for me on modern RPGs simply because they're not as thorough as the older ones. If you're spending too much time creating your face then you should remind yourself that you'll never look at it and it doesn't matter. Remind me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the original Fallout ask you to pick a character with a backstory? I thought that was weird. I would rather they feed me a backstory through dialogue with NPCs, but whatever.

It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point. I was just wondering when. Then again people really love FFVII and I never could get into that.

Well, 20 minutes and 5 isn't all that different in terms of how much of the game you experienced. Shady Sands, which is en route to Vault 15 from your starting location, is generally where people stop first, in it you meet Aradesh and Tandi, get Ian in your party, fight some radscorpions and Khans and generally get a feel for how pretty much everything in the game works. I can understand people not liking Fallout, really, I can, but I think a lot of people either do what you did or they get killed in their first random encounter and just quit. It's the kind of game that requires a patient and methodical approach, and I'd really advise giving it a few hours at least before dismissing it, it just isn't the kind of game you can assess in 20 minutes.

As for character creation, in a traditional RPG like D&D, as I understand it, each player designs a character and comes up with a backstory for them, they then play that character according to the information they've decided upon. In Fallout, there are three premades with their own backstories that you can play, but by far the most popular — and recommended — option is to create a new one from scratch with whatever backstory you like. I guess it depends how much imagination you want to put into it, personally I didn't like how F3 handled backstory, it was far too prescriptive for my taste, but I can appreciate why some would prefer to have an opening sequence like that rather than having to come up with their own motivations for whatever they're doing.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 19, 2014, 10:20:44 PM
If you spend that much time on character creation then sure. I can see it getting annoying.

But if a game also doesn't draw you in with any kind of good story or environment then it also sucks.

And shouldn't character creation take awhile for a good RPG? That's just kind of standard really. The first Fallout didn't seem like too much of an RPG in the first 5 minutes. More like a point and click rat fighting game.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to say. Is it the mark of a good RPG to spend time on character creation or is it in fact crappy if it takes more than five minutes?

As for F1, Vault 13 is only a place to begin, not the game in full, there's plenty of story if you allow the game a little time to get rolling, a large chunk of it comes from the large cast of characters you meet out in the world. If you're looking for a big attention grabbing thing right away, it doesn't have that, what it does have is a world rebuilding itself and lots of stuff to do to help or hinder its progress, ultimately these combine to offer rather a large story surrounding the fate of the future NCR. If you judge it to be a bad game on the first five minutes alone, that's your problem.
First, we can stop assuming I made a judgment off 5 minutes. I played for about 20. I made it to a vault in the east and experienced several crappy battle sequences. If the story gets better great, however I'm sure the combat remains terrible. The only person I talked to was a caravan trader. Yay. They could have at least started you off inside the vault rather than outside which makes it seem like they're discouraging any opening story.

Second, yes it is the sign of a good RPG to spend time on character creation. Usually, I know what I want and it doesn't take too long for me on modern RPGs simply because they're not as thorough as the older ones. If you're spending too much time creating your face then you should remind yourself that you'll never look at it and it doesn't matter. Remind me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the original Fallout ask you to pick a character with a backstory? I thought that was weird. I would rather they feed me a backstory through dialogue with NPCs, but whatever.

It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point. I was just wondering when. Then again people really love FFVII and I never could get into that.

Well, 20 minutes and 5 isn't all that different in terms of how much of the game you experienced. Shady Sands, which is en route to Vault 15 from your starting location, is generally where people stop first, in it you meet Aradesh and Tandi, get Ian in your party, fight some radscorpions and Khans and generally get a feel for how pretty much everything in the game works. I can understand people not liking Fallout, really, I can, but I think a lot of people either do what you did or they get killed in their first random encounter and just quit. It's the kind of game that requires a patient and methodical approach, and I'd really advise giving it a few hours at least before dismissing it, it just isn't the kind of game you can assess in 20 minutes.

As for character creation, in a traditional RPG like D&D, as I understand it, each player designs a character and comes up with a backstory for them, they then play that character according to the information they've decided upon. In Fallout, there are three premades with their own backstories that you can play, but by far the most popular — and recommended — option is to create a new one from scratch with whatever backstory you like. I guess it depends how much imagination you want to put into it, personally I didn't like how F3 handled backstory, it was far too prescriptive for my taste, but I can appreciate why some would prefer to have an opening sequence like that rather than having to come up with their own motivations for whatever they're doing.
Oh, then I didn't make it to a vault. It wasn't Shady Sands either as there were no people.

At this point I'm comparing the game more to something like Baldur's Gate than the newer Fallout games. In Baldur's Gate it takes awhile to create the race, class, weapon variety that you want.

Then, you spend some time in the Candlekeep, getting to know people and a little basic foundation for your own background. It reveals just enough so that you know a little about the what you're getting yourself into. But the motivation when moving forward is still something that you can come up with. But your simple back story is revealed through casual encounters with the people which I feel is more authentic.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 19, 2014, 11:59:06 PM
personally I didn't like how F3 handled backstory, it was far too prescriptive for my taste

You are a nineteen-year-old kid and an unpopular loser among your peers.

At this point I'm comparing the game more to something like Baldur's Gate than the newer Fallout games. In Baldur's Gate it takes awhile to create the race, class, weapon variety that you want.

Then, you spend some time in the Candlekeep, getting to know people and a little basic foundation for your own background. It reveals just enough so that you know a little about the what you're getting yourself into. But the motivation when moving forward is still something that you can come up with. But your simple back story is revealed through casual encounters with the people which I feel is more authentic.

In Baldur's Gate, your background is relevant to the story, so it needed to be included.  In Fallout, it's not.  It doesn't matter (at least in terms of the story) who you were or what you were doing when you were living in the vault; you actually have to get out and start doing things actively before you become involved in the story.  So what would be the point of giving you a background - one that naturally wouldn't please everyone - when it could just be left up to you instead?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on February 20, 2014, 01:06:44 AM
I think this whole "forming an opinion of the game based on the first five minutes" system of criticism is a pretty good idea.

Hopefully you're not addressing me as well with this, I played the game for quite a while.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 20, 2014, 03:50:03 AM
I think this whole "forming an opinion of the game based on the first five minutes" system of criticism is a pretty good idea.

Hopefully you're not addressing me as well with this, I played the game for quite a while.

According to your posts on the old site, you didn't play it long enough to save even once.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 20, 2014, 07:43:42 AM
If you spend that much time on character creation then sure. I can see it getting annoying.

But if a game also doesn't draw you in with any kind of good story or environment then it also sucks.

And shouldn't character creation take awhile for a good RPG? That's just kind of standard really. The first Fallout didn't seem like too much of an RPG in the first 5 minutes. More like a point and click rat fighting game.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to say. Is it the mark of a good RPG to spend time on character creation or is it in fact crappy if it takes more than five minutes?

As for F1, Vault 13 is only a place to begin, not the game in full, there's plenty of story if you allow the game a little time to get rolling, a large chunk of it comes from the large cast of characters you meet out in the world. If you're looking for a big attention grabbing thing right away, it doesn't have that, what it does have is a world rebuilding itself and lots of stuff to do to help or hinder its progress, ultimately these combine to offer rather a large story surrounding the fate of the future NCR. If you judge it to be a bad game on the first five minutes alone, that's your problem.
First, we can stop assuming I made a judgment off 5 minutes. I played for about 20. I made it to a vault in the east and experienced several crappy battle sequences. If the story gets better great, however I'm sure the combat remains terrible. The only person I talked to was a caravan trader. Yay. They could have at least started you off inside the vault rather than outside which makes it seem like they're discouraging any opening story.

Second, yes it is the sign of a good RPG to spend time on character creation. Usually, I know what I want and it doesn't take too long for me on modern RPGs simply because they're not as thorough as the older ones. If you're spending too much time creating your face then you should remind yourself that you'll never look at it and it doesn't matter. Remind me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the original Fallout ask you to pick a character with a backstory? I thought that was weird. I would rather they feed me a backstory through dialogue with NPCs, but whatever.

It has a high rating, so it must get better at some point. I was just wondering when. Then again people really love FFVII and I never could get into that.

Well, 20 minutes and 5 isn't all that different in terms of how much of the game you experienced. Shady Sands, which is en route to Vault 15 from your starting location, is generally where people stop first, in it you meet Aradesh and Tandi, get Ian in your party, fight some radscorpions and Khans and generally get a feel for how pretty much everything in the game works. I can understand people not liking Fallout, really, I can, but I think a lot of people either do what you did or they get killed in their first random encounter and just quit. It's the kind of game that requires a patient and methodical approach, and I'd really advise giving it a few hours at least before dismissing it, it just isn't the kind of game you can assess in 20 minutes.

As for character creation, in a traditional RPG like D&D, as I understand it, each player designs a character and comes up with a backstory for them, they then play that character according to the information they've decided upon. In Fallout, there are three premades with their own backstories that you can play, but by far the most popular — and recommended — option is to create a new one from scratch with whatever backstory you like. I guess it depends how much imagination you want to put into it, personally I didn't like how F3 handled backstory, it was far too prescriptive for my taste, but I can appreciate why some would prefer to have an opening sequence like that rather than having to come up with their own motivations for whatever they're doing.
Oh, then I didn't make it to a vault. It wasn't Shady Sands either as there were no people.

At this point I'm comparing the game more to something like Baldur's Gate than the newer Fallout games. In Baldur's Gate it takes awhile to create the race, class, weapon variety that you want.

Then, you spend some time in the Candlekeep, getting to know people and a little basic foundation for your own background. It reveals just enough so that you know a little about the what you're getting yourself into. But the motivation when moving forward is still something that you can come up with. But your simple back story is revealed through casual encounters with the people which I feel is more authentic.

In addition to what Saddam says, which I definitely agree with, I think it heightens the sense of the Overseer's desperation that he's basically sending random guys out to find another water chip, feeding them this bullshit story about how they're the only one who can do it, this is immediately followed up by finding one of the people who went before you long dead and picked clean by rats outside the vault door. Even if you don't have a concrete backstory, which again I think is unnecessary in this particular game, your vault is certainly in dire straits.

I think this whole "forming an opinion of the game based on the first five minutes" system of criticism is a pretty good idea.

Hopefully you're not addressing me as well with this, I played the game for quite a while.

It was a joke. I assumed everyone would take it that way.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on February 20, 2014, 02:23:27 PM
I think this whole "forming an opinion of the game based on the first five minutes" system of criticism is a pretty good idea.

Hopefully you're not addressing me as well with this, I played the game for quite a while.

According to your posts on the old site, you didn't play it long enough to save even once.

No, I was simply spoiled by autosaves and didn't think to save even once. :[ The only games I ever think to save in nowadays are ones that either explicitly tell me to or handheld games. Otherwise I forget because it's not really necessary most of the time.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 22, 2014, 05:53:33 AM
Playing through the original again isn't so bad now that I know what I'm doing.  The main quest is really short, now that I think about it.  The bulk of the game lies in exploring the locations, completing the sidequests, that kind of thing.  It's not a game to be rushed through, and that's the main reason why they ought to have scrapped the time limit.  It just doesn't fit.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 22, 2014, 09:22:28 AM
Playing through the original again isn't so bad now that I know what I'm doing.  The main quest is really short, now that I think about it.  The bulk of the game lies in exploring the locations, completing the sidequests, that kind of thing.  It's not a game to be rushed through, and that's the main reason why they ought to have scrapped the time limit.  It just doesn't fit.
Did you actually return the chip on your first playthrough?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 22, 2014, 07:28:16 PM
Indeed:

After finally getting back to playing the game, I have delivered a water chip to the Vault!  Huzzah!

I forgot and I was too lazy to check.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
Which NPCs would you recommend recruiting as followers, Crudblud?  In both games.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 24, 2014, 11:04:58 AM
Which NPCs would you recommend recruiting as followers, Crudblud?  In both games.
In F1 I generally just pick up everyone I can, iirc they're pretty useless in combat by the end, so make sure you're well equipped with power armour and energy weapons. In terms of companion variety F1 is pretty limited, F2 is much more complex and you have quite a lot of options both for party build and how the NPCs operate in combat.

To get the maximum party size in F2 (5 NPCs in vanilla) set Charisma to 8 and get the Magnetic Personality perk. Sulik usually dies because he's a melee fighter, but he's helpful enough in the early game. In combat, Cassidy, Goris and Marcus are my preferred crew. Dogmeat is the best dog ally, K-9 is also good, but avoid Robodog (K-9 with lower stats) and definitely avoid Pariah, if you fail the luck check and he joins you, you should just kill him (he can join over the party cap). Skynet is good in combat but bugs out some NPCs, I don't use him very often so I don't know if the restoration patch fixed that. Lenny can be useful if you're not levelling up your healing skills, but he's mediocre in combat unless you give him power armour, similarly Vic is good if you aren't levelling your repair skills, but if you're specialising for combat I suggest taking Myron as a support because he can make drugs and stimpaks (including super stimpaks), he also has some of the funniest dialogue in the entire game. Davin and Miria are both more like flavour characters than anything, and pretty useless in combat. I think that covers just about everyone.

tl;dr: F1: Get everyone you can but make sure you're not relying on them too much. F2: Max out the party cap and get Cass, Goris, Marcus, Myron and Dogmeat. Kill Pariah if he joins.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 24, 2014, 11:54:40 AM
You absolutely need powerarmour and energy weapons to make by at the end? What if you're roleplaying as a guy who only use guns and light armour? Muh freedum!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2014, 03:05:20 PM
Thanks, Crudblud.

You absolutely need powerarmour and energy weapons to make by at the end? What if you're roleplaying as a guy who only use guns and light armour? Muh freedum!

Then you will soon be roleplaying as a dead guy.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 24, 2014, 03:25:48 PM
some roleplaying game that doesn't let you play the way you want :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2014, 04:27:34 PM
It does let you play the way you want.  It's just that you're going to die if you stick to the low-powered route.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 24, 2014, 04:32:25 PM
If you're roleplaying someone who is smart enough to get to the end of Fallout, you're roleplaying someone smart enough to gear up properly for the finale.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 24, 2014, 05:11:42 PM
some roleplaying game that doesn't let you play the way you want :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
Fo realz. I love playing unarmed characters cause those powerfists are pretty damn awesome. What kind of rpg is this?!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2014, 06:46:43 PM
Besides, the inevitability of change and the futility of clinging to the past has always been a major theme of the series.  It may well apply to reliance on primitive technology too.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on February 24, 2014, 06:52:44 PM
Besides, the inevitability of change and the futility of clinging to the past has always been a major theme of the series.  It may well apply to reliance on primitive technology too.
Sounds like an over-analytical way to say that their class mechanic sucks.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 24, 2014, 06:59:43 PM
I would go as far as to say that there is no class mechanic. But I think it should be possible to finish the game in several different ways instead of forcing you to don a powerarmour and and energy weapons in order to stand a chanse. What about light armour, stealth and agility? How about a diplomatic approach? I haven't had to fight Legate Lanius even once.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 25, 2014, 05:02:48 AM
There is a diplomatic approach you can take with the main villain, but you still need to do plenty of fighting to get to him.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 05:26:59 AM
Can you do it by stealth-sniping your way through to him?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 25, 2014, 08:22:04 AM
I was simply illustrating the most efficient way to do it in combat, there are many other tactical options, the power armour route is by far the least difficult in my experience. Unless you've specialised in speech there isn't an easy way to take on the Master, his SPECIAL is mostly 10s, he has heavy energy weapons, a high sequence and iirc cannot suffer critical failures. There's an alternate route you can take and bypass him altogether, but that option has its own challenges is cheap as fuck.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 25, 2014, 02:18:13 PM
Can you do it by stealth-sniping your way through to him?

Stealth-sniping?  Don't be ridiculous, Mugsy.  I think it's quite clear that it was your intention to roleplay these games as the Man with No Name.  You think you can beat them while wearing a poncho and only using primitive guns and good old fisticuffs.  Well, it's not going to happen.  You myst adapt and become a sci-fi warrior to complete the games.  It is the only way.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 02:31:32 PM
shit gaem
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 25, 2014, 03:06:10 PM
I'd like to see Eastwood try to take down a big motherfucker like Horrigan with his old-timey revolver.  He wouldn't even be able to do it with Dirty Harry's gun.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 03:38:37 PM
I bet Batman could do it without guns.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 26, 2014, 04:31:30 PM
Yes!  I've joined the Brotherhood of Steel and now I'm decked out in awesome power armor.  I can take on anything the wasteland throws at me.  Anything!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on February 26, 2014, 04:46:35 PM
Absolutely anything.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 28, 2014, 11:59:08 PM
First off, I stand by my claim that the interface sucks.  Well, it's not entirely the interface.  It's partially the interface, partially the controls, but more than that, just little quirks with how the game works - none of which seem like a big deal at first, but they grate on you more and more the longer you play.  A few examples off the top of my head: Only one character can occupy an individual space at a time.  That leads to getting trapped in rooms when an NPC stands in the doorway.  Moving the screen (or the camera, or your line of vision, whatever it's called) around so you can take a look at your immediate area is surprisingly awkward.  It's the screen you're moving around, after all, not the character.  And yet you'll be hitting arbitrary invisible walls all over the place.  Also, there's two "modes" that you have to keep switching between, one where you move around and one where you interact with people or objects.  It's clunky and it's unnecessary.  Why not simply do what any other game would do - just assign the left mouse button to movement and the right (coupled with a drop-down menu, of course) to interactions?

That was just a few examples, like I said.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any of them are huge game-breaking flaws.  What they are is annoying, especially after dealing with them for hours and hours.  And what makes it worse is that I think they could have been fixed with just a little tinkering around with the technical side of things.  I loved the material of the game, so to speak, and it's a shame to see it, well, not ruined, but certainly hurt somewhat by all this.

Speaking of which, let's get to the good parts.  The world itself is a lot of fun to explore, especially the settlements.  Obviously it's not as visually impressive as the one in F3, but I definitely prefer Interplay/Black Isle/(eventually) Obsidian's style of writing, which was clearly the guiding force in how they designed their world.  Bethesda has some fun ideas and all, but at the end of the day, that's all they are, fun.  Here, you can actually take something away from all the places you visit, all the people you see, and all the quests you do.  There are themes here.  There's social commentary.  Pretty much everything about the Hub, for example, is a sharp critique of capitalism.  They even have their very own underclass.

The main story is...decent.  What drags it down a bit is the beginning, which is kind of boring.  You've got to go find a water chip, because insert technobabble here, and off you go.  Snore.  I know that the main quest isn't the bulk of the game, like I mentioned before, and it's really just a pretext to get you out into the world.  It's the journey, not the destination and all that.  But it's a weak pretext, and as rooster pointed out, it's not much of a hook.  The second part of the story, in which you have to deal with the Master and his army of Super Mutants, is a lot more interesting.  Bonus points for some truly disgusting concepts and visuals.  Centaurs are even more horrifying in this game than in F3 and NV, and the Master himself has one of the most freakish designs I've ever seen in a video game.

What else is there to say...a handful of roles are voiced, and they got some fairly well-known actors to handle them.  There's Richard Dean Anderson, David Warner, Tony Shalhoub, Brad Garrett (perfectly cast as a Super Mutant), and a couple of others.  They all do a good job, even though their presence is all too brief.

Finally, there's the turn-based combat.  It can be annoying at times, but I know what they were going for.  It's tactical and strategic, you have to use your head, you can't just button-mash your way through, blah blah blah.  It's not particularly polished, but I can't think of anything (beyond the technical quirks I alluded to above) they could change without defeating the purpose entirely.  There are definitely some gamers out there who will take one look at the combat and have an "Oh, hell no" reaction, and I don't blame them too much.  That being said, it definitely has some advantages over FPS-style combat, and it grew on me after a while.  So, if you're at least open to the idea of turn-based combat, you might like how it works here.  If you're not, then this is absolutely not the game for you.

tl;dr: Fuck you, read my review.

On the notion of pontificating:

17:38   Crudblud   Saddam: That was a fair review, although I disagree with your assertion that F3 has a more visually interesting world
17:38   Crudblud   It looks like the aftermath of a Roland Emmerich movie
17:38   Crudblud   in fact, that's a good way to sum up my feelings about F3
17:39   Saddam   Write a long and rambling rebuttal, Crudblud
17:39   beardo   I don't know who Roland Emmerich is
17:39   Crudblud   It's like Roland Emmerich was hired to direct an adaptation of Fallout, and F3 was the tie-in game
17:39   Crudblud   Saddam: I agree with most of what you said though
17:41   Saddam   The problem with Emmerich movies aren't the visuals, though
17:41   Foxbox   The visuals are one of many many problems
17:41   Saddam   It's that their (derp) loud and dumb and have shitty stories and characters
17:42   beardo   If F3goty went down to 9,99, I could consider buying it
17:43   beardo   I have no idea why I've seen New Vegas on sale many times, but never F3
17:43   Crudblud   I don't think NV was as financially successful
17:44   Saddam   Crudblud: Junktown is a settlement caught between the positive influence of Shady Sands and the negative influence of the Hub
17:44   Saddam   Represented by Killian and Gizmo respectively
17:45   Saddam   The struggle between Killian and Gizmo, therefore, is not just physical, but also ideological
17:45   Crudblud   Saddam: No shit
17:45   Blanko   d33p
17:45   jroa   Pussies.
17:46   Saddam   The Vault Dweller's actions determine whether Junktown will become a progressive force for good in the Wasteland, like Shady Sands
17:47   Saddam   Or descend into greed and corruption like the Hub
17:47   Crudblud   Well, Shady Sands eventually becomes NCR, which as we see later on falls prey to bureaucracy
17:47   Crudblud   And over expansion
17:47   Saddam   Yes, but that downfall isn't part of F1's timeline
17:47   Saddam   It's a future problem
17:47   Crudblud   I know
17:48   Saddam   The point is that every journey begins with a single step
17:48   Saddam   And F1 is concerned with the first step of every settlement's journey
17:49   Crudblud   To an extent, although they are all well established by the time you leave Vault 13
17:51   Crudblud   Walled cities with businesses and farms and trade networks and so on
17:54   Saddam   But symbolism and shit
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on March 01, 2014, 01:46:53 AM
Good review, Saddam. I trust your unbiased perspective over the fanboy's. When I looked into how the game is generally received, it's writing and the world itself were definitely the stand out qualities. I know I already love the world from the new games and I'm sure the has to eventually get entertaining, but it's those poor gameplay mechanics I'm going to have a hard time getting through.

I really don't care for the turn based combat and it's not necessary for a strategic game. Just compare it Baldur's Gate. Sure, you can pause during combat and almost turn it into a turn based game but you don't have to and you definitely have to use strategy in that game.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 01, 2014, 05:20:53 PM
Good review, Saddam. I trust your unbiased perspective over the fanboy's.

But I am a fanboy.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on March 01, 2014, 05:49:20 PM
Good review, Saddam. I trust your unbiased perspective over the fanboy's.

But I am a fanboy.
Fanboys typically don't have anything bad to say about whatever they're fanning over. But if you are then I appreciate the objective review.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 01, 2014, 05:55:03 PM
Way to generalise fanboys.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on March 01, 2014, 07:18:47 PM
Way to generalise fanboys.
There's a difference between fans and fanboys. Fanboys are a stereotype.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on March 02, 2014, 12:53:08 PM
I don't think anyone here could legitimately be described as a fanboy. If you want to see what Fallout fanboys are really like, visit the NMA forums.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 02, 2014, 02:33:21 PM
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forumdisplay.php?17-Fallout-3-Discussion

They sit there and stew in their hatred.  It can't be healthy.  Also:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forumdisplay.php?25-Fallout-Piece-of-Shit-(PS2-XBOX-My-Lower-Intestine)

I lol'd.  Unfortunately, all the shitty reviews they link to are gone.  Why don't you tell us about F:POS instead, Crudblud?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 02, 2014, 03:46:17 PM
I am now a member of the Brotherhood of Steel Mojave Chapter. I have power armour and energy weapons.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on March 02, 2014, 05:05:46 PM
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forumdisplay.php?17-Fallout-3-Discussion

They sit there and stew in their hatred.  It can't be healthy.  Also:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forumdisplay.php?25-Fallout-Piece-of-Shit-(PS2-XBOX-My-Lower-Intestine)

I lol'd.  Unfortunately, all the shitty reviews they link to are gone.  Why don't you tell us about F:POS instead, Crudblud?

I'm not really sure what I could tell you about it, as it wasn't a game I played much at all. I remember it just being a generic hack-and-slash (or whatever that would be with guns instead of melee) thing with a nu metal soundtrack. I traded it in for something else not long after I bought it (MGS 3, I think). Wiki could tell you more than I can.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 03, 2014, 03:55:59 PM
I'm downloading Fallout 3 now to try it out. Might buy it later if the GOTY drops to below 10 euros some time.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 03, 2014, 09:19:23 PM
I have now been playing Fallout 3 for a couple of hours. I think I need to play some more in order to craft an opinion about it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 04, 2014, 05:27:26 AM
I went to bed after posting that so I haven't played any further. And I'm about to go to work now.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 04, 2014, 03:01:15 PM
Fallout 3 crashes a lot.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 04, 2014, 06:16:36 PM
Well?
Is ok. I think I might have gotten to stops crashing as well.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 07, 2014, 02:44:50 AM
What the hell?  I just met the bridge keeper from Monty Python.  What is this nonsense?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on March 07, 2014, 03:13:15 AM
What the hell?  I just met the bridge keeper from Monty Python.  What is this nonsense?

The first two games (the second, especially) are rife with lolarious pop culture references. That won't be the last one you encounter.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 07, 2014, 04:10:33 AM
What the hell?  I just met the bridge keeper from Monty Python.  What is this nonsense?

The first two games (the second, especially) are rife with lolarious pop culture references. That won't be the last one you encounter.

I know, but that wasn't a pop culture reference, that was a full-blown reenactment.   It made zero sense within the context of the story, and now I'm wearing robes that make me look like an idiot, but I can't take them off because they're as powerful as combat armor while being significantly lighter.  This is the kind of thing that the oldfags would have dived on if it had been in F3 and waved around as Exhibit A of the game's stupidity.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on March 07, 2014, 04:26:44 AM
What the hell?  I just met the bridge keeper from Monty Python.  What is this nonsense?

The first two games (the second, especially) are rife with lolarious pop culture references. That won't be the last one you encounter.

I know, but that wasn't a pop culture reference, that was a full-blown reenactment.   It made zero sense within the context of the story, and now I'm wearing robes that make me look like an idiot, but I can't take them off because they're as powerful as combat armor while being significantly lighter.  This is the kind of thing that the oldfags would have dived on if it had been in F3 and waved around as Exhibit A of the game's stupidity.

There are plenty of other, similarly fully blown re-enactments of other similarly stupid moments from equally stupid books, shows, games, and movies in the game. Here's the complete list for FO2: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_cultural_references
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 04:22:10 AM
I have completed the first part of the game!  Meaning that I found the GECK and returned to Arroyo.  Also, I did porn and boxing in New Reno.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on March 11, 2014, 06:38:47 AM
Also, I did porn

wat
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 11, 2014, 09:50:30 AM
He was in a porno.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 01:09:40 PM
He was in a porno.

My character is actually a lady.  And now all the other wimminz in town are jelly and bitching at me wherever I go.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2014, 01:13:40 PM
Saddam wants to be the little girl.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 11, 2014, 05:56:11 PM
>playing as female
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on March 11, 2014, 07:43:51 PM
He was in a porno.

My character is actually a lady.  And now all the other wimminz in town are jelly and bitching at me wherever I go.

Don't worry. I play female characters too.  :P
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 07:45:24 PM
>playing as female

It's a roleplaying game!  I can play whatever role I want! >o<
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 12, 2014, 05:54:41 AM
>roleplaying as female
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on March 12, 2014, 06:04:23 AM
Isn't the point of roleplaying to play various roles :P
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on March 12, 2014, 06:29:48 AM
Ha ha ha.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2014, 02:58:22 AM
You can meet the people in Vault 13.  Just turn around and walk right back in.  There's even a couple of quests you can do there.

As it turns out, this isn't quite true.  You have to wait some game time before they let you back in.  Just thought I'd correct this. :P
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on March 15, 2014, 12:11:28 PM
Stop playing the gender you're not!!!  >o< †††††††††††††††
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on March 15, 2014, 01:27:53 PM
Degenerate's!  >o<
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 03, 2014, 10:11:40 PM
So, in many respects, F2 is a big improvement over the original.  Two technical issues I had with the last one were fixed - there's now an option to push a companion aside if he's blocking you, and it's definitely easier to move the little screen around.  As well as that, there's a lot more story, a lot more character (particularly with the companions), and the world itself is larger, more complex, and more developed.  It's less "post-apocalyptic" and more "post-post-apocalyptic," you could say.

The writing is, for the most part, of the same high quality as F1 and NV.  There are still moral dilemmas, social commentary, and deep stuff like that.  The one aspect in which it's quite a bit different is the comedy, which I have mixed feelings about.  This game does not take itself seriously, and it shows.  It's constantly throwing jokes at you, constantly trying to make you laugh.  There are pop culture references, fourth wall jokes, zany random encounters, and the like.  The writers must have especially liked dirty jokes, too, because there's a ton of them.  Now, are these jokes funny?  Absolutely.  They're hilarious at times.  But they're so silly and excessive that they have a tendency to overshadow the ostensibly-serious parts of the game, like the main story.  It's kind of hard to worry about my kidnapped tribe when I'm deciding if I should be called Courtney Coxsleeve or Pokeahotass, after all.

There's one more issue that I had with this game.  With both games, really, but it's more prominent in this one because the main story is so much more complex.  There isn't much organization or structure in the main quests.  You're given only a few vague clues, and then it's up to you to figure out where you need to go and what you need to do there.  By itself, that's fine.  I'm not saying there ought to be quest markers or hand-holding or anything.  But the problem is that the game assumes that you're doing every step in the order that the developers must have had in mind when they wrote all this.  As a result, you can stumble onto a step out of order when you're just asking around for clues.

Here's the biggest example of this I encountered.  My tribe has been abducted.  My only clues are that the kidnappers were armed with energy weapons and were headed towards the sea.  So I travel to a city on the coast, San Francisco, and start asking around.  One random guy on the docks I'm talking to is guarding a boat.  An option is there to ask him to use the boat, so I select it, and all of a sudden a speech check pops up in which I give a long spiel about how I need to travel to the oil rig to rescue my tribe from the Enclave and therefore I need his boat to get to the submarine.  Wait, what?  Who are the Enclave?  How do I know they abducted my tribe?  What oil rig?  How do I know that's where my tribe is?  What submarine?  What does a submarine have to do with an oil rig, anyway?  It was very jarring, and dare I say it, immersion-breaking.

...

Ignore me all you want, but I'm going to keep posting!  You're all going to read what I'm saying just out of boredom, in any case.  It could be worse.  You could be reading Parsifal's Zappa reviews.  Anyway, now that I've played the first two games, I feel like I can address Crudblud's criticisms of the lore in F3 a bit better than when I had just read the information on the fan wikis, so here goes.

First of all, the super mutants in the Capital Wasteland were complete bullshit.  The development of the mutants on the West Coast wasn't some simple accident that could have happened anywhere there was FEV; the Master had arranged it all carefully from the start.  He created more of the mutants, he organized them, he armed them, he directed their activities, etc.  It makes no sense that these mutants would be doing all this similar stuff of their own accord.  Basically, what Crudblud said.  Also, Tim Cain himself called out this element as being a rehash in an otherwise highly-complimentary review of the game, which I found to be fairly interesting.

Then there's the Enclave, and yeah, they're another repeat performance.  Their involvement is certainly more justified than the mutants, being that they're obviously a powerful national organization, but from a writing perspective, very little that's new is offered.  Maybe one new element that they could have expanded on a bit was Autumn's motivation - as ruthless as he was, he didn't want to wipe out the inhabitants of the wasteland, but to make sure that the Enclave were the ones distributing water to them rather than the Brotherhood, thereby gaining their loyalty and trust.  That's an interestingly political goal, and might have made for a better focus than Eden's rehashed plan from F2, but alas, we didn't get to see much of it.

Speaking of the Brotherhood, I'm going to stick to my guns on that point.  If the way it worked was that you met the Brotherhood and they just handwaved away their history with something like "We used to collect technology, but now we help people lol," there would be reason to complain, but that's not what happened.  Bethesda made a big effort to stress that it wasn't what the Brotherhood usually does, and that Lyons's decision to prioritize helping people was extremely controversial within the organization, with a number of members deserting, others growing openly resentful of him, and most of the senior leadership only supporting him out of personal loyalty.  I'm not saying that it was fantastic writing, and I wish they could have made a bit more of it, but as it is, I really don't think it's unfaithful to the lore.

The Capital Wasteland is overly ridiculous to the point of stretching credibility, as has been discussed.  However, Bethesda doesn't really deserve all the blame for that one, not after Black Isle got the nonsense ball rolling with F2.  Is the mere existence of Megaton, a town built around a nuclear warhead, absurd?  Of course it is.  But you know what, so is a giant fucking molerat who's worshipped as a god and determined to take over the world!  And so is the wizard who lives by a bridge and somehow has the power to blow you up if you answer a question wrong.  And so are the aliens that you randomly just run into sometimes.  The point I'm making is that the franchise was in a very silly state when Bethesda started working on F3, and the game we got was scarcely more goofy than the one that came before it.  Of course, they didn't have to continue the trend of silliness, and I'm glad that NV took a few steps back in that regard, but it wasn't unreasonable for Bethesda to assume that fans wanted more of what they saw in F2.

Maybe there was something else I wanted to mention, but I can't remember anything now.  Eh, whatever.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 04:28:33 AM
wow please stop replying to this noober troll
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on April 04, 2014, 03:57:33 PM
I want you to know that I read it and appreciate your review. But I have nothing to contribute.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 04, 2014, 05:13:38 PM
12:59   Saddam   beardo: How do you like F3?
12:59   beardo   It's ok.
13:00   beardo   I'm not a Fallout lorefag, so I don't really care about whatever Crudblud don't liek about it
13:00   Saddam   But beardo
13:00   Saddam   Why are specific elements of the Master's plan just coincidentally showing up on the East Coast?
13:00   Saddam   BAW
13:01   beardo   Saddam: I do not know.
13:01   Saddam   BAW
13:01   Snupes   Why is there a character called "The Master"
13:01   Crudblud   Because he was the master of the mutant army
13:01   beardo   Because he was the master
13:01   Snupes   But
13:01   Saddam   It's not his real name, duh
13:01   Foxbox   It is clearly named after one of the greatest films
13:01   beardo   Butt
13:01   Snupes   The Master
13:01   Crudblud   His real name is Richard Grey
13:01   Snupes   He should be called Richard Grey then.
13:01   beardo   The Master is a sexy villain
13:01   Crudblud   But he is The Master
13:02   Saddam   But that's not how he referred to himself
13:02   Crudblud   Because he is a mutant computer man
13:02   Saddam   He was commanding retarded mutants, after all
13:02   Foxbox   I will watch The Master again soon, I have been wanting to
13:02   Snupes   But
13:02   Crudblud   The Master is awesome
13:02   Snupes   The Master
13:02   Barkno   The Master is a sequel, right?
13:02   Saddam   "Master" is easier to remember than "Mr. Grey"
13:02   Crudblud   Barkno: To what?
13:02   Barkno   I dunno
13:02   Barkno   I thought it was
13:02   Foxbox   It is not at all
13:02   Snupes   Sure, but it also sounds like a 90s RPG/saturday morning cartoon villain
13:02   Crudblud   Uh, no, I'm pretty sure it's a stand alone work
13:03   Barkno   oh ok
13:03   Saddam   Sounds like a Doctor Who villain, amirite?
13:03   Foxbox   PTA has never made a sequel
13:03   Snupes   Ohaho
13:03   Snupes   The Parents-Teachers' Association has never made a sequel.
13:03   Saddam   Crudblud: Respond to my lore ramblings
13:03   Foxbox   Snupes: I anways think of that when I talk about PTA
13:03   Crudblud   All in good time, Saddam
13:04   Snupes   Foxbox: I anyways do too.
13:04   Saddam   No, you have to do it nao
13:04   Saddam   Right nao
13:04   Crudblud   In good time
13:04   Barkno   All in good time
13:04   Crudblud   I have a composition contest piece I should be working on this month, I don't have time to discuss the finer points of Fallout with you
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2014, 05:18:01 PM
Fallout sucks. It has always sucked. You all suck.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 04, 2014, 07:07:12 PM
The desert landscapes can be a bit repetitive but apart from that the Fallout series are pretty good.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: fappenhosen on April 05, 2014, 03:07:52 PM
Copy pasting chat logs gives the impression that this site is well populated and active. Please continue.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on April 07, 2014, 05:05:29 PM
Power armour and energy weapons
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: pilot172 on April 16, 2014, 11:59:34 AM
ive only played fallout 3 and new vegas both were excellent games im still playing new vegas its addictive
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rama Set on April 16, 2014, 12:18:27 PM
Neverwinter Nights. Please discuss.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on April 16, 2014, 12:47:58 PM
Neverwinter Nights. Please discuss.

Not very Fallout.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 03, 2014, 01:50:39 AM
beardo vs. Crudblud

beardo was a cowboy.  He wore a cowboy hat, a dusty parker, and an old-fashioned revolver at his side.  He didn't hold with none of the fancy technology and futuristic gadgets that some people were introducing into the wasteland.  He was an old-school guy, accustomed to an old-school world.  Power armor and energy weapons didn't fit into his vision.

Some people disagreed with him.  People like Crudblud.

"Throw down your weapons, foolish herder of cattle!" Crudblud shouted, clad in his power armor and waving around his advanced plasma rifle.  "You are beaten!  There is no place in the left in the world for you, you myopic Luddite!  Not unless you renounce your backwards, technophobic ways and shun the path of regression forever!"

beardo spat and defiantly set his rugged jaw.  "Don't know what those big words mean, but I know you and your kind ain't takin' our land.  Best get back to where you came from."

"You fool!" bellowed Crudblud, raising his plasma rifle.

beardo rolled to the side to avoid the blast of green energy and landed on one knee.  In the next second, his revolver was out and raining lead down on Crudblud, who snarled and staggered backwards.  But the bullets didn't seem to be hurting him.  In the next second, his gun fell quiet, and Crudblud raised his rifle and began blasting at him again.

Ducking under the plasma bolts, beardo sprinted for the cover of a large rock.  Once there, he frantically reloaded his revolver and tried to figure out what to do.  Perhaps he needed a different weapon.  But could any weapon get through that armor?  Unless...the trick wasn't to target the armor at all.

Meanwhile, Crudblud laughed at his cowering foe.  "Come out and end this, beardo.  You know there's no way you can win.  None of your pathetic weapons can penetrate my armor!"

beardo poked his head around the rock.  "Heh heh, you said 'penetrate.'"

The speech check was passed, and beardo earned 50 experience.  Crudblud roared in anger and raised his rifle, but at the same moment, beardo threw a lit stick of dynamite at the exposed weapon.  The resulting explosion didn't hurt Crudblud much beyond knocking him off his feet, but his rifle slid off to the side, ruined in the blast.

That was all beardo needed.  With a roar of his own that put Crudblud's to shame, he charged straight for the armored warrior as he slowly staggered to his feet and jumped on his back.  Crudblud swung his arms wildly, but beardo slid around on his back using cool climbing techniques to stay out of his reach.  Then he drew his combat knife and attacked, stabbing at the joints and seams of the armor, hoping to find a weak spot.

Sparks and crackles of electricity appeared wherever he struck, and eventually he found a soft target in the middle of Crudblud's neck armor and drove the knife in as far as it would go.  Electricity surged from the impact throughout the suit of armor and up beardo's arm, forcing him to let go.  The next thing he knew, one of Crudblud's arms had seized and flung him bodily.

beardo crashed to the ground painfully.  Crudblud removed his helmet, now sparking so much it was useless, and threw it aside.  Ignoring the pain in his ribs, beardo climbed to his feet and drew his revolver, only to discover that it too was ruined, probably in the surge of electricity.  He let it fall.

Crudblud sneered.  "So, now we're both weaponless.  Doesn't bother me.  This suit amplifies my strength enough to allow me to kill you in hand-to-hand combat."

"Ooh, hand-to-hand combat, ain't you special."  beardo raised his fists.  "Well, I got something better than that.  Good old fisticuffs."

Before Crudblud could react, beardo was on him, raining his fists down on his exposed face.  With a growl, he lunged at the bearded cowboy, but beardo slid under him and between his legs, giving his metallic crotch a kick as he went.  Once he emerged on the other side, he continued his barrage on Crudblud's head.

"Enough of this!" shouted Crudblud, lashing out with an armored arm and knocking beardo to the ground.  This was followed by seizing the cowboy's throat with enough force to choke the life out of him.

"That was the worst display of martial arts I've ever seen in my life!  You had no form, no technique, no posture, no real strategy, no -"

beardo finally saw his chance.  His combat knife was still lodged in Crudblud's armor, and now that his enemy had him by the throat, it was within reach.  He grabbed it and yanked it out, and another burst of electricity erupted from it.  Releasing beardo, Crudblud collapsed to the ground in agony.  beardo angled the knife at his throat.

"You win," Crudblud gasped.  "Finish it."

After a moment's thought, beardo decided not to.  "No. I'll let you live."

"Why?"

Another speech check appeared, and beardo earned 80 experience.  "Killing you wouldn't fix the rest of your gang.  They'd come looking for you, they'd find us, and we don't want a war or nothing here.  But now you know from what just went down that we ain't to be fucked with, and you can go back to tell your pals that it would be best for everyone if you all went someplace else."

"You are both merciful and wise, cowboy.  I thank you for my life."  With that, Crudblud limped off, and beardo returned to his village, the day saved.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on September 03, 2014, 01:59:26 AM
Wtf did I just read
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on September 03, 2014, 02:08:22 AM
Fallout canon.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on September 03, 2014, 02:44:15 AM
Fisticuffs is a type of hand-to-hand combat, beardo, so it couldn't be "better".
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 03, 2014, 03:04:07 AM
Fisticuffs is a type of hand-to-hand combat, beardo, so it couldn't be "better".

beardo was assuming that Crudblud was referring to some kind of formal martial arts system, and so he contrasted such "fancy" fighting to his own method of untrained brawling.  Background:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodOldFisticuffs
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lemon on September 03, 2014, 02:31:07 PM
that was terrible.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 03, 2014, 05:00:24 PM
that was terrible.

Incorrect.  It is canonical Fallout lore, and you myst respect it as such.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Vongeo on September 03, 2014, 07:52:28 PM
Dumb dome is fallout fanfic
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 23, 2014, 09:20:42 PM
Look, an excuse to bump this thread:

http://kotaku.com/lets-rank-the-fallout-games-best-to-worst-611408965

Discuss.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 23, 2014, 10:19:16 PM
Where's Fallout Tactics?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 23, 2014, 10:21:07 PM
Where's Fallout Tactics?

Nobody cares about Tactics or Brotherhood of Steel. They are spin-offs, and very different from the primary games. Including them wouldn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 23, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
I care you little bitch
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 24, 2014, 03:21:23 AM
Quote
And that opening level, in the Vault? It's gotta be one of the best introductions in a game, ever.

No.  Even by tutorial dungeon standards (and tutorial dungeons are inherently terrible) the intro to F3 sucks huge balls.  For one thing, it's way too long, and for another, it shoehorns you into a very specific character with a very specific backstory for no good reason.  And it's a pretty lousy character, too.  You're a naive, gee-whiz young kid with zero previous life experience and no idea of what he's doing stumbling headfirst into a world he doesn't understand.  The game sets this out so clearly that there is literally no wiggle room to imagine anything more interesting about yourself or your past.  Maybe you feel conflicted from an event in your past that-NOPE.  Maybe you once had this friend who-NOPE.  Maybe you're seeking amends for-NOPE.  Maybe something interesting once-NOPE.  All you are is a bland and naive young kid, and if you forget it, the game will remind you every chance it gets.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 24, 2014, 03:40:36 AM
Quote
And that opening level, in the Vault? It's gotta be one of the best introductions in a game, ever.

No.  Even by tutorial dungeon standards (and tutorial dungeons are inherently terrible) the intro to F3 sucks huge balls.  For one thing, it's way too long, and for another, it shoehorns you into a very specific character with a very specific backstory for no good reason.  And it's a pretty lousy character, too.  You're a naive, gee-whiz young kid with zero previous life experience and no idea of what he's doing stumbling headfirst into a world he doesn't understand. The game sets this out so clearly that there is literally no wiggle room to imagine anything more interesting about yourself or your past.  Maybe you feel conflicted from an event in your past that-NOPE.  Maybe you once had this friend who-NOPE.  Maybe you're seeking amends for-NOPE.  Maybe something interesting once-NOPE.  All you are is a bland and naive young kid, and if you forget it, the game will remind you every chance it gets.

There is wiggle room, though. You don't get to see every moment of your time spent in the vault. But yes, you are a young adult with very little experience when the game properly begins. That seems like the most acceptable starting scenario in any game based around character progression.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on October 24, 2014, 01:13:50 PM
I think the opening is one of the more interesting parts of F3's story. Perhaps it would have been better if the entire first half of the story was set in a fully functional vault that slowly falls apart, eventually resulting in a civil war and mass evacuation to the surface. The second part would deal with the trials and tribulations of the former vault dwellers as they travel the wastes in search of land to settle. Thematically it would somewhat mirror the Vault Dweller's journey after F1, while covering ideas not explored in the other games. Obviously, this lacks the epic water filter action of the F3 we actually got, but I feel like it would be a much more interesting addition to the series.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 24, 2014, 01:29:58 PM
I just hated being a fucking baby.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 24, 2014, 01:35:48 PM
I just hated being a fucking baby.

Why?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 24, 2014, 01:50:56 PM
I hate babies.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 24, 2014, 01:51:12 PM
That's badass.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 24, 2014, 03:46:40 PM
No it's not.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 24, 2014, 10:03:56 PM
I can sense the envy in The Edge's words.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 24, 2014, 10:16:28 PM
I like motorcycles, cigarettes, and the color black. I only listen to Finnish fagmetal that nobody has ever heard of or cares about. I identify with it because nobody has ever heard of or cares about me either.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 24, 2014, 10:20:35 PM
w0w
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 24, 2014, 10:22:19 PM
I like motorcycles, cigarettes, and the color black. I only listen to Finnish fagmetal that nobody has ever heard of or cares about. I identify with it because nobody has ever heard of or cares about me either.

I think I found your myspace...

(http://i.imgur.com/CzIFZtB.png)


Anyways, back on topic...


Fallout.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 24, 2014, 10:35:08 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I guess I simply have a problem with Bethesda trying to mesh their usual "Be anyone, go anywhere, do anything" design philosophy with such a close-to-home, personal story.  They don't fit together.  One moment you're this evil monster enslaving children and blowing up towns, and the next moment you're saying things like "But Dad, why did you abandon me?  And what really happened to Mom?"  It's weird and jarring when they don't address the discrepancy, and when they do try to address it, well, it's even worse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPmC2myjS7A
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 24, 2014, 10:39:45 PM
I think the concept could have been pulled off well, but it would have required a much, much more talented team of writers.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 24, 2014, 11:13:35 PM
I think the main problem with Fallout 3 is that it isn't nearly as good as people make it out to be. Fallout 2 was the best in the series, and 3 just fucked everything up. Gone is the illusion of the open-world and choices, instead we get instanced zones linked together by a boring and tedious sewer/subway system that's painful on the eyes, a clusterfuck level up system, and altogether just a very rushed and buggy game. It virtually created the "bulletsponge" genre that we know of today, which spawned terrible monsters like the Borderlands series.

It has a shallow storyline, which Saddam somewhat touched on, that is inconsistent in tone. Everything feels like a parody of the original games. The towns (especially Megaton) don't make any damn sense... where do they get their damn water? The original series touched on the little things like this, while Fallout 3 just expects you to sit back and take all this nonsensical BS like it's totally ok because "we're using the Oblivion engine lulz".

Fuck Fallout 3. It's overrated garbage.

New Vegas is easily better than Fallout 3, and that game still sucks.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 24, 2014, 11:29:06 PM
I don't dislike F3, but NV is better.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 24, 2014, 11:33:06 PM
It virtually created the "bulletsponge" genre that we know of today, which spawned terrible monsters like the Borderlands series.

Er...
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 24, 2014, 11:34:30 PM
It virtually created the "bulletsponge" genre that we know of today, which spawned terrible monsters like the Borderlands series.

Er...

No er about it. Fallout 3 is the pioneer of faux-FPS bulletsponge BS.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 25, 2014, 08:58:58 PM
You make plenty of choices during F3, some of which would probably have had a big impact on the future of the Capital Wasteland for years to come.  It would have been nice to see the lasting effects of your choices in the ending cutscene, rather than just having Ron Perlman tell you whether you were Jesus or the Antichrist.  Speaking of that ratshit ending, I hope Bethesda didn't take away the wrong lesson when they retconned it with Broken Steel.  I can imagine some of the...younger players staring at their screens in disbelief, yelling, "WHAT THE FUCK!?  IT'S OVER!?  WHERE'S MY POST-GAME SANDBOX!?  BETHESDA, YOU PROMISED OBLIVION WITH GUNS!"  As utterly awful in every way as the original ending was, at least it was still an actual ending.  I'd hate for the next game to just keep on going after the main story, as if your choices didn't have consequences, or as if nobody cares what you did or didn't do prior to concluding the main story.  Fallout isn't TES, and Bethesda shouldn't be trying to fit it into the exact same formula.

If anyone hasn't noticed by now, my opinion of F3 has gone down dramatically over the past year or so, partially due to Crudblud's wise words, but also because I've played through the original two games and realized firsthand just how much Bethesda screwed up with the franchise.  They handled a few elements of it well, but for the most part the game is simply brainless.  And that might be fine for some franchises, but not one like Fallout.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 25, 2014, 09:17:21 PM
Fallout isn't TES, and Bethesda shouldn't be trying to fit it into the exact same formula.

I agree, but Bethesda developed this game with Oblivion's engine and went along with the whole "Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns" thing publicly. They sorta road on the coattails of Oblivion's success, hoping that would increase Fallout 3's sales (which I'm sure it did). So I don't blame people who got annoyed by the original ending. I'm not saying this is a good thing. I feel like they should have created a new engine for the game or at least modified the original engine a bit more and added some more elements from the original series. Of course, one of the biggest problems is the writing team and how they mucked up a lot of the lore...  Fallout 3 is a decent game, it's just not a very good Fallout game.

Adding to this, I think Fallout 3 is one of Bethesda's worst games. It feels like a poorman's attempt to revitalize a dead franchise. "Oblivion sold well, let's just use that engine and throw a fresh coat of paint on it and hire a bunch of deadbeat writers who don't know shit about the original lore. People will freak out because it's Fallout, and we don't have to put that much effort into it because the engine is already there for us to recolor! Brilliant!"
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 25, 2014, 09:35:20 PM
ITT: People who don't know dip about the Fallout franchise
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 25, 2014, 09:39:35 PM
ITT: People who don't know dip about the Fallout franchise

Please, go on.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 25, 2014, 09:41:11 PM
I will when I have the freaking time
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 25, 2014, 09:53:56 PM
I don't think the problem is so much that the story "ended" the game. I think the Broken Steel ending was an improvement. This is a game, first and foremost. I prefer open-world games to be open-ended even after the main story is completed. The problems is how Bethesda handled it. Your actions throughout the story don't really impact the Capital Wasteland, not because the game continues after the ending but because Bethesda simply didn't code it that way. If Fallout 3 was designed better it wouldn't be a problem. I feel like laziness on the developers part is to blame here. Oblivion made the same mistakes.

At least blowing up Megaton had a noticeable change on the game-world, although that wasn't handled very well either.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 25, 2014, 11:32:42 PM
I don't think the problem is so much that the story "ended" the game.

Neither do I.  The problem is that the game very abruptly presents you with a clear-cut, black-and-white choice of "Be a martyr or be a selfish asshole," completely ignores the fact that there are other options that ought to be available to you (stacking up on radiation resistance, for example, or sending an immune companion in), and then gives you an ending cutscene that consists of nothing more than condescendingly patting you on the head for being good or condescendingly frowning and shaking its head at you for being bad.

Quote
I think the Broken Steel ending was an improvement.

I agree, but only for the reasons I mentioned above.

Quote
This is a game, first and foremost. I prefer open-world games to be open-ended even after the main story is completed.

I strongly disagree, at least as far as Fallout is concerned.  By having a concrete ending where the futures of the settlements and characters that you encounter are explained, it confers a powerful sense of responsibility on the player.  Your actions have consequences, and if you care at all about the world you're exploring and impacting, you need to use your considerable power wisely to make sure that everyone gets the ending they deserve.  In F1, F2, and NV, if a particular ending popped up that I hadn't planned for, say, as the result of a quest I forgot or didn't bother completing, it felt like a punch to the gut.  It wasn't that the game itself was outright calling me an asshole, unlike F3 (seriously, that game was way too judgmental, especially with Three Dog pretty much chronicling your every move), it was that I felt responsible for neglecting something that needed my attention.

That all goes out the window if the game just keeps on going.  It's back to the usual "just do whatever, whenever" that most open-world games already adhere to.  I'm sure that some people prefer that to the distinct ending, but personally, I felt that it was unique and cool, and I'd hate to see the franchise drop it.

Quote
The problems is how Bethesda handled it. Your actions throughout the story don't really impact the Capital Wasteland, not because the game continues after the ending but because Bethesda simply didn't code it that way. If Fallout 3 was designed better it wouldn't be a problem. I feel like laziness on the developers part is to blame here. Oblivion made the same mistakes.

At least blowing up Megaton had a noticeable change on the game-world, although that wasn't handled very well either.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, or how it's any different to any of the other games in the franchise.  The big changes happen after the events of the game.  Years and years after.  They're long-term changes, not immediate ones.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 26, 2014, 12:48:11 AM
Didn't the original ending give you an option to sacrifice your aide and save yourself? I haven't played Fallout 3 since Broken Steel was released.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 26, 2014, 02:17:36 AM
Vauxhall I hate you now. But don't worry nobody likes me.

Where is this coming from?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on October 26, 2014, 02:19:07 AM
Didn't the original ending give you an option to sacrifice your aide and save yourself? I haven't played Fallout 3 since Broken Steel was released.

Yes, but you still "died" and the game ended. Also, for whatever reason, Fawkes would never help you, despite the fact he is fucking immune to radiation and his going in there was the single most logical choice to make.

Where is this coming from?

Just add him to your ignore list. It saves you scroll room, time, and brain cells. You're not missing out on some sort of awesome addition of content to the site by doing so. There is literally no downside.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 26, 2014, 03:21:53 AM
Vongeo'd.  Anyway, you can send Sarah Lyons instead of yourself, but you can't send a companion.  Even though some of them are immune to radiation and could easily do it without anyone getting hurt, they'll still just say no.  Now, when Broken Steel was added, they would agree to do it.  But the funny thing about taking that option is that Bethesda was too lazy and/or cheap to get Perlman to come back and record some new dialogue for the "ending" cutscene, so they left that unchanged, and the only question the game asks itself before triggering the cutscene is whether or not the player went in themselves.  So the game will still call you a cowardly asshole simply for doing the smart thing and making sure that nobody gets hurt.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on October 26, 2014, 05:34:07 AM
If anyone hasn't noticed by now, my opinion of F3 has gone down dramatically over the past year or so, partially due to Crudblud's wise words, but also because I've played through the original two games and realized firsthand just how much Bethesda screwed up with the franchise.
Another victory for FO!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 26, 2014, 07:35:47 PM
Also, I really hope they keep the speech/skill checks as they were in NV.  The probability-based system was just a huge invitation to save-scum, while the new system was far more realistic and provided a lot of great humor.  (My favorite skill check was yelling "Robot!  Let me past!" at the Securitrons guarding the Strip.  How I laughed.)  That being said, Bethesda would have to improve their writing considerably for them to be able to match the comedy of the failures or the genuine intelligence/persuasiveness of the successes in NV.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 26, 2014, 07:53:23 PM
And NPC's should have appropriate responses to dumb dialogues by player characters with low intelligence.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 26, 2014, 07:58:44 PM
Is it apparent to anyone else that Fallout was obviously inspired by the Deathlands novels?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 26, 2014, 08:01:44 PM
Maybe to those who have read them.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on October 27, 2014, 07:16:13 AM
Is it apparent to anyone else that Fallout was obviously inspired by the Deathlands novels?
I don't know. I doubt anyone who invests the time to read through all that shit (by 1996 there were already 30 novels in the series) has time to make a video game. It is possible, however, that Pilgrimage to Hell from 1986 had an influence on the 1988 Wasteland, to which Fallout was intended as a spiritual successor.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 01:40:24 PM
I love Fallout 3. I like it way more than I ever liked Oblivion. I don't know which I like better; NV or FO3. NV plays better for sure, but I preferred FO3's story to NV. It just felt more personal. I could relate more to hunting down my dad than I could to saving/destroying/whatever a Vegas strip.

The story was fine with me but I'm not like you guys- I'm just a filthy casual who really doesn't care that much about an epic story with lots of options or the first two games. It was just a fun game.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
I like it way more than I ever liked Oblivion.

Must... resist... the... urge... to kill
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 29, 2014, 08:44:37 PM
I like it way more than I ever liked Oblivion.

Must... resist... the... urge... to kill

That doesn't even come close to being a controversial opinion.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on October 29, 2014, 09:14:05 PM
But this one is controversial: I like Oblivion more than I like Morrowind. That one always upsets the bf.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 09:15:00 PM
But this one is controversial: I like Oblivion more than I like Morrowind. That one always upsets the bf.

confidence restored.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 29, 2014, 09:24:41 PM
But this one is controversial: I like Oblivion more than I like Morrowind. That one always upsets the bf.

Can something really be considered "controversial" if one side of the issue only has one supporter in the entire world, though?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 29, 2014, 09:25:06 PM
I like it way more than I ever liked Oblivion.

Must... resist... the... urge... to kill

That doesn't even come close to being a controversial opinion.

He didn't imply that it was, only that he disagreed.  I don't like it when people pretend that their own dumb and/or obscure opinions are the conventional wisdom or majority opinion either, but that's not what happened here.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 09:26:17 PM
But this one is controversial: I like Oblivion more than I like Morrowind. That one always upsets the bf.

Can something really be considered "controversial" if one side of the issue only has one supporter in the entire world, though?

Incorrect. I also enjoy Oblivion more than Morrowind, and I also consider it a better game. That makes two supporters. Checkmate morrowfag.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on October 29, 2014, 09:30:02 PM
I like it way more than I ever liked Oblivion.

Must... resist... the... urge... to kill

That doesn't even come close to being a controversial opinion.

He didn't imply that it was, only that he disagreed.  I don't like it when people pretend that their own dumb and/or obscure opinions are the conventional wisdom or majority opinion either, but that's not what happened here.

Yes, fair enough. I was just suggesting that it would be in poor taste to kill somebody for having a very reasonable opinion.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on October 29, 2014, 09:40:47 PM
I don't like it when people pretend that their own dumb and/or obscure opinions are the conventional wisdom or majority opinion either, but that's not what happened here.

Hmmm. Sounds very similar to someone I know.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 05, 2014, 06:48:15 PM
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-shadow-of-boston-trademark-appears/1100-6423376/

Wincing at that terrible name was painful.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on November 05, 2014, 06:49:04 PM
Probably fake. The last Fallout hoax was also accompanied by a trademark.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on November 05, 2014, 06:49:13 PM
enter Skyrim with guns
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 05, 2014, 07:31:56 PM
East coast again? No Western feel to this one either then..
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 05, 2014, 08:25:03 PM
East coast again? No Western feel to this one either then..
As long as they leave Black Isle's turf alone they can set it in Liechtenstein for all I care.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 05, 2014, 09:27:54 PM
Fine.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on November 05, 2014, 10:18:56 PM
https://twitter.com/Bethblog/status/530072762854170624?s=09
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on November 05, 2014, 10:24:12 PM
https://twitter.com/Bethblog/status/530072762854170624?s=09

*golf clap*

Lotto numbers please
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on November 07, 2014, 08:01:35 AM
Literally three people on the entire planet were surprised.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 01, 2015, 01:43:26 AM
<Irushwithscvs> I'm still playing fallout 3
<Irushwithscvs> I'm not quite sure how one person can carry 2500 10mm rounds without at least some sort of backpack or case
<Irushwithscvs> or how they don't snap their back in two
<Blanko> Shitty video game logic
<Blanko> That's how
<Irushwithscvs> well all bethesda games work on the basis that large items just disappear into your inventory
<Blanko> ok
<Irushwithscvs> but why though
<Blanko> Why not
<Blanko> It's a video game
<Irushwithscvs> how does one fit 20 battleaxes onto their person without any of them showing?
<Irushwithscvs> where do they go>?
<Blanko> Does it matter
<Blanko> It's a fucking video game for children
<Irushwithscvs> but where
<Irushwithscvs> where does it all go?
<Blanko> The cloud
<Irushwithscvs> how does 500 arrows fit into a quiver visibly showing eight?
<Blanko> Here's what I'm wondering
<Blanko> Why are you wasting your time playing shitty games
<Irushwithscvs> but I'm not, though
<infinity> this is why I prefer Atari 2600 games, they are all real
<Crudblud> Fallout 3 is a rather shitty game
<Irushwithscvs> at least its better than new vegas
<Saddam> Incorrect
<Irushwithscvs> correct
<Crudblud> >falling for it
<Saddam> Sorry
<Crudblud> Oh Saddam
<Irushwithscvs> what
<Saddam> Although you could carry unrealistically-huge loads in the first two Fallouts as well
<Blanko> Irushwithscvs is the Armond White of FES
<Saddam> Yes
<Irushwithscvs> I don't understand how fallout has fusion reactors but they only output like 5 watts
<Irushwithscvs> "oh we got the fusion reactor up and running but it can only power a few lights:
<Crudblud> I don't understand why realism is at all an issue
<Irushwithscvs> the hell kind of reactor is that
<Irushwithscvs> its not fusion
<Crudblud> It's a fantasy game
<Irushwithscvs> but its not realistic
<Irushwithscvs> and its in 2077 but it looks like 1977
<Irushwithscvs> or at least everything blew up in 2077
<Irushwithscvs> and its sometime after that point
<Irushwithscvs> does fallout have CHIM?
<Irushwithscvs> I know it doesn't have chimps
<Crudblud> I'm sure Bethesda will try to shoehorn CHIM into it at some point
<Irushwithscvs> I imagine fallout has dragon breaks too, but the dragon doesn't really like to go there
<Irushwithscvs> skyrim would have been so much easier if you ran around with a laser rifle
<Irushwithscvs> or a wazer wifle, the best laser in the game
<Blanko> Why are you rambling
<Irushwithscvs> you haven't noticed that I come in here, ramble like a looney for 5 or 10 minutes then leave?
<Crudblud> This is like Saddam lite
<Crudblud> Normally we don't pay that much attention to you
<Irushwithscvs> googled this armond white guy
<Irushwithscvs> [l]iking [a film] or disliking it is irrelevant
<Irushwithscvs> sounds more like Parsipal: Film Mode
<Blanko> The point is that he's a massive contrarian
<Blanko> He shits on good things and likes awful things
<Crudblud> Parsipal: Film Mode is literally "explosions are gay this is for children 0/10"
<Irushwithscvs> but how does one define good things and awful things
<Irushwithscvs> like you define morrowang as a "good thing" but it isn't
<Irushwithscvs> it isn't even remotely good in any sense of the word
<Blanko> See
<beerdo> :)
<Blanko> :)
<Saddam> Parsipal
<Saddam> Wait, wait, are you saying you're unaware of the retro-futuristic elements of Fallout's setting?
<Saddam> Irushwithscvs
<Irushwithscvs> so you could define me as "contrarian to blanko under specific conditions"
<Irushwithscvs> yes saddam I am completely unaware of the theme of fallout
<Blanko> Irushwithscvs: ok
<Blanko> But that's not how I'm defining it though
<Irushwithscvs> but you blanket stated that I am like him
<Saddam> Irushwithscvs: The Fallout series is set in a world based on predictions of the future from the fifties
<Irushwithscvs> If anything, you're the contrarian
<Blanko> Yes?
<Blanko> Because you are
<Irushwithscvs> anything that you say is good actually isn't
<Irushwithscvs> so I question your judgement, not mine
<Saddam> Hence the reliance on vacuum tubes and primitive technology and the abundance of fifties lounge music and whatnot
<Blanko> Of course you would
<Blanko> That's the point
<Irushwithscvs> saddam it is literally impossible for a society to have computer simulations but not discovered any type of techonology beyond a nixie tube
<Irushwithscvs> you would have to make computers the size of US states out of nixie tubes to get anywhere near the necessary power to simulate the graphical environment presented in Fallout's sims
<Saddam> It is a fanciful setting
<Irushwithscvs> yet they appear to have computers that are only mildly bigger than our own
<Irushwithscvs> fallout is just generic fiction plastering nixie tubes on things where they don't belong
<Saddam> It's almost as if these games...are unrealistic
<Irushwithscvs> at least its better than most steampunk games
<Saddam> What in God's name is "generic fiction"?
<Irushwithscvs> It drives me mad if I play a steampunk themed game that has a single fucking nixie tube anywhere in it
<Irushwithscvs> you know, generic fiction
<Irushwithscvs> you know.
<Blanko> Saddam: It's something Rushy loves saying when he's being a contrarian
<Irushwithscvs> any way the nixie tube was invented so far beyond the steam age its a complete retart move to include them in a steampunk setting
<Saddam> This is the first time I've ever seen him say that
<beerdo> eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
<Saddam> Or anyone say that, for that matter
<Irushwithscvs> might as well just have computers
<Saddam> At least "generic fantasy" makes sense
<Irushwithscvs> generic fantasy is a subtype of generic fiction
<Saddam> But what does that even mean
<Irushwithscvs> fictional settings that are used widely enough to be noted as generic
<Saddam> You're goofy
<Irushwithscvs> e.g. giant mushrooms or DEWs
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on February 01, 2015, 02:05:47 AM
<Irushwithscvs> but where
<Irushwithscvs> where does it all go?

Disappointed no one ever answered.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 01, 2015, 12:24:43 PM
Virtual backpack space, obviously. Or are you looking for an in-universe explanation? If so, be prepared for walls of text about boys eating their own semen.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 01, 2015, 04:06:00 PM
Hammerspace.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Vongeo on February 03, 2015, 01:52:31 AM
Someone is going to hunt you down and murder you one day rushy if you don't be careful.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 05, 2015, 09:04:11 PM
https://twitter.com/ETDellums/status/579478260888834048

Oh, Christ.  Don't tell me he's going to be in F4.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost of V on April 05, 2015, 09:09:01 PM
https://twitter.com/ETDellums/status/579478260888834048

Oh, Christ.  Don't tell me he's going to be in F4.

Don't worry. I killed him in 3 so there's no way he's coming back.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2015, 09:56:12 PM
https://twitter.com/ETDellums/status/579478260888834048

Oh, Christ.  Don't tell me he's going to be in F4.

Well yeah, in fact he was the same person who revealed there would be a new Fallout, so we've known about his role for at least a year now.

Don't worry. I killed him in 3 so there's no way he's coming back.

It might not be literally Threedog that comes back. They could easily make a new radio station character that "emulates the classic style of Threedog" or something.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 02, 2015, 10:33:38 PM
https://fallout.bethsoft.com/

hype intensifying
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on June 02, 2015, 10:47:41 PM
It's coming to the 360 and PS3 too, which means it's going to be unoptimized junk.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on June 03, 2015, 01:26:08 AM
It's coming to the 360 and PS3 too, which means it's going to be unoptimized junk.

Because Bethesda is usually known for its outstanding platform optimization? I don't understand how coming to 360 and PS3 actually affects this since Bethesda would release 'unoptimized junk' even if it was just coming to PC. Even the console versions of Fallout 3 had crashing issues. An impressive feat.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 03, 2015, 08:07:23 AM
https://fallout.bethsoft.com/

hype intensifying

Yay!

It's coming to the 360 and PS3 too.

Yay!!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2015, 01:32:44 PM
Games are still being made for PS2 and 360?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 03, 2015, 02:15:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnn2rJpjar4

No mention of it being for the 360 or PS3, only Xbone, PS4, and PC.  Apart from that...meh.  The graphics in particular look suspiciously same-y.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2015, 02:16:07 PM
The character animations has been greatly improved, and I personally thought the environment looked more realistic and detailed.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on June 03, 2015, 02:25:36 PM
It looks better, but that was a pretty disappointing trailer.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2015, 02:27:35 PM
It's about what I expected. What were you hoping to see?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 03, 2015, 02:31:32 PM
Maybe some graphics that reflect the fact that it's been seven years since 2008.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on June 03, 2015, 02:45:46 PM
muh graffics


I don't care that much how a game looks. But I would have liked to see some more about the story, maybe just a snippet of the main plot would have been nice.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2015, 03:35:52 PM
muh graffics

I don't care that much how a game looks.
Yes. This. Thank you.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 03, 2015, 03:59:44 PM
Maybe some graphics that reflect the fact that it's been seven years since 2008.
I'd say it did.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on June 03, 2015, 04:07:16 PM
I agree that the graphics don't matter too much. Nintendo systems often lag behind competitors in their graphical capabilities, and yet it is the art design in a Mario or Zelda game that makes their titles so much more beautiful to look at than, say, the latest edition of Call of Duty. In this instance, all that matters is that the assets are put to good use in creating a worldspace, an atmosphere. The shots in the trailer of various places look fine, I am somewhat concerned that Bethesda appears to be taking considerable liberties with Fallout tech in some cases, but good art design can compensate for shortcomings in other areas of the presentation, and some of the places shown in the trailer look like they could be nice to look around and wander through at the very least.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on June 03, 2015, 05:55:28 PM
It's coming to the 360 and PS3 too, which means it's going to be unoptimized junk.

No, it isn't.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on June 03, 2015, 11:42:56 PM
It's coming to the 360 and PS3 too, which means it's going to be unoptimized junk.

No, it isn't.

Oops, I thought it was.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on June 04, 2015, 02:38:18 AM
muh graffics

I don't care that much how a game looks.
Yes. This. Thank you.

Everyone cares about graphics. They just like to say they don't.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2015, 02:41:22 AM
I thought the graphics were pretty good. Is this a twilight zone thread? Usually Saddam is the one hatin' because of the focus on 'muh grafics'.

It's coming to the 360 and PS3 too, which means it's going to be unoptimized junk.

No, it isn't.

Doesn't matter, the game will still be horridly unoptimized. Thanks, Bethesda.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on June 04, 2015, 04:19:43 AM
That is horribly pessimistic and you're a stupid person for thinking that way. I think Bethesda is going to do a really good job and if they don't, heck, they gave it their best shot and that's all that really matters.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 04, 2015, 04:22:11 AM
I'm hoping Obsidian will make another west coast game which yet again will surpass Bethesda's effort.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on June 04, 2015, 04:23:39 AM
muh graffics

I don't care that much how a game looks.
Yes. This. Thank you.

Everyone cares about graphics. They just like to say they don't.

Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 04, 2015, 04:24:37 AM
My first impression was that the graphics only looked marginally better than those of F3, but upon closer examination, I can tell that they're much improved in how clear and sharp they are, especially with the environments.  Maybe the brighter and more vibrant colors threw my scrutiny off.  Or maybe I'm just a snobby PC elitist who's lost touch with realistic graphical capabilities.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on June 04, 2015, 05:45:41 PM
maybe I'm just a snobby PC elitist

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oPcdfWpEGgs/VFF236LEhpI/AAAAAAAAgAw/YL28IeRJRB8/s1600/Ray%2BLiotta%2BLaughing%2BIn%2BGoodfellas.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on June 15, 2015, 05:38:53 PM
So I just watched the Giant Bomb coverage of the Bethesda E3 press conference, and I guess I'll share some thoughts on the Fallout 4 footage.

1. The voiced protagonist sounds like ass and I really hope there's an option to turn off his voice separately from the others, even though they will probably be annoying too. Also, why do the vault thing again? Both Fallout 2 and New Vegas gave some neat alternatives to being a vault dweller, Bethesda seems reluctant to switch up the formula too much.

2. Super Mutants and Brotherhood of Steel are back... why? This seems like Bethesda repeating their Fallout 3 mistake of clinging to easily recognisable things from the series' past because they don't want to exert too much effort in coming up with new factions.

3. Your dog companion can be ordered to go and get things for you via a "go here" point and click thing, but its response to commands is so slow that you might as well just walk there.

4. You can build your own houses and communities in preset locations around the map. So there's basically an expanded version of Hearthfire in the game, and that could be a neat feature if it has enough granularity.

5. VATS looks a lot more fluid, and doesn't just straight up stop time any more. Even so, I hope the free shooting combat is good enough that VATS isn't something the player has to rely on to fight. It was necessary to use the VATS aiming system in the original games, but in its 3D incarnations it has often felt to me more like a crutch for the developers to excuse their shoddy FPS combat.

6. You can play minigames on your Pip-Boy. Uh... yay?

7. You can call a vertibird to come and pick you up. What?

If you liked Fallout 3 this looks like more of the same, and I'm sure it will deliver everything you want in a new Fallout title. For me, that's a cause for concern more than anything, F3 was a mess made by people who didn't seem to understand what Fallout is, its world or its atmosphere, and felt totally uninspired and half-assed at the same time because it was mainly elements of the original games cobble together with no rhyme or reason stuffed into a new location, with a bullshit story set on the 200th anniversary of the Great War, where you are Wasteland Jesus and Three Dog is your prophet. I really want Fallout 4 to be great, I really want to enjoy playing it and be able to say that it's a worthwhile addition to one of my favourite series of games, but what I've seen at the press conference doesn't give me a lot of confidence that this is going to be more than a retread of the mistakes they made last time around.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 15, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
They should name it "Fallout four dialogue options".
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 15, 2015, 07:34:20 PM
All of the voice actors are terrible, and the characters themselves once again look fake and plasticky.  Also, the presence of the Brotherhood isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but I hope they're not being altruistic and boring like they were in F3.  The "real" BoS is interesting.  F3's BoS was not.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 15, 2015, 07:48:45 PM
Glossy Glaze Face.

They look fine though. I'm just happy they aren't ugly potato faces.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on June 15, 2015, 07:53:12 PM
All of the voice actors are terrible, and the characters themselves once again look fake and plasticky.  Also, the presence of the Brotherhood isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but I hope they're not being altruistic and boring like they were in F3.  The "real" BoS is interesting.  F3's BoS was not.
Yeah, my concern isn't so much that the BoS is there but why it's there, and how Bethesda is going to use it in the game.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 15, 2015, 07:56:58 PM
And how can you be over 200 years old? Vaults don't have cryostasis chambers do they?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 15, 2015, 10:28:52 PM
Some things look exciting, the jetpack power suit, the animation for the creatures (particularly the deathclaw), the customisable weapons, the 'build your own shack' thing, but it is looking very much like a Fallout 3 expansion pack rather than a new game at the moment - BoS, Supermutants, Ghouls and Sentrybots, there's nothing there that jumps out as being particularly new. The graphics, while good, aren't this-gen quality - even compared to ports like The Last of US.

And how can you be over 200 years old? Vaults don't have cryostasis chambers do they?

Some do, like Vault 112 http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_112

Since the player is going to be from Vault 111 it makes sense that it might have similar facilities to run similar experiments.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 15, 2015, 10:40:33 PM
o
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 16, 2015, 06:33:19 AM
Quote
The voiced protagonist sounds like ass

Maybe the woman protagonist will be better?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on June 16, 2015, 07:15:03 AM
Quote
The voiced protagonist sounds like ass

Maybe the woman protagonist will be better?

It's possible, though it would doubtless be hampered by Bethesda's always lacklustre facial animations. However, my real issue, and I should have been clear about this earlier, is that in a game where I design my own character in appearance, aptitudes, and skillsets, I prefer to imagine what that character sounds like rather than being told what they sound like. I know the trend at the moment is to spoonfeed the player everything and not allow their imagination to come into the equation whatsoever, but in this kind of game it should be a straight no-no, so I hope there will be a specific option to turn off the voice over just for the protagonist. I'm sure someone will make a mod for it if it isn't included, but I think the option should definitely be there from day one.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 16, 2015, 08:33:18 AM
That is a good point. It will sound odd if a charismatic Wasteland conman, a lunk-headed bruiser and an energy-weapon obsessed tinkerer all sound the same...
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 22, 2015, 08:03:11 PM
I don't think it would really work for this game to be able to turn off the protagonist's voice, because your side of the conversation is no longer simply what you select in the dialogue options - instead, they're going with the whole Bioware-inspired system of your selected option just being a prompt for a more verbose response from your character.  Of course, that system works for Bioware because their RPGs aren't so much about you creating a unique character from scratch as they are about you guiding an established character through the choices that they make over the course of the story.  It doesn't work when you're supposedly choosing whether your character is going to be smart or dumb, polite or rude, aggressive or cautious, etc.

Also, I don't like that Bethesda is once again going out of its way to ensure that your character has no knowledge or experience of the outside world whatsoever, and that no, you can't come up with your own backstory or motivation.  It's like they don't understand that there are plenty of stories to tell in science fiction without falling back on the whole Campbellian archetype.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on July 07, 2015, 01:02:23 PM
On the notion of Fallout 4:

(https://i.imgur.com/sbxDfoZ.jpg)

Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 08, 2015, 04:53:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lWNdcbq3EU

Not too much that we haven't already seen, unfortunately.  I kind of like how the power armor is more a sort of mech that you climb into, rather than your own personal armor that you can just stick in your hammerspace backpack like everything else.  It's a departure from the previous games, obviously, but it feels more realistic, and it should hopefully make the game more challenging by requiring you to be on foot for certain parts.

https://twitter.com/bethesdastudios/status/629340621459877888

Very disappointing.

http://www.vg247.com/2015/08/05/fallout-4-looks-more-and-more-like-a-recycled-fallout-3/

Also very disappointing.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on August 08, 2015, 04:59:11 PM
Uh, how is that tweet disappointing?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on August 08, 2015, 05:01:10 PM
literally sadaam
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on August 08, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Now I might actually bother with the main story.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on August 08, 2015, 05:43:29 PM
Wait, so Saddam actually wants the game to end after completing the main quest? He actually wants what was considered one of the worst things about Fallout 3?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on August 08, 2015, 05:55:06 PM
Yes, because "a Fallout story should have a beginning and an end, just liek the first two games derp"
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 08, 2015, 06:24:44 PM
Wait, so Saddam actually wants the game to end after completing the main quest? He actually wants what was considered one of the worst things about Fallout 3?

What sucked about F3's ending was how terrible and abrupt it was, not that it was an ending in the first place.  There was no huge backlash over the endings to F1, F2, or NV, because they were handled much better.  Blanko mentioned in IRC that he'd like to see the consequences of your actions play out in-game, and while that would be great, we all know it isn't going to happen.  You'll just complete a quest and that's it, quest over.  Move on, nothing to see here.  Skyrim with guns.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on August 08, 2015, 06:45:48 PM
What sucked about F3's ending was how terrible and abrupt it was, not that it was an ending in the first place.  There was no huge backlash over the endings to F1, F2, or NV, because they were handled much better.  Blanko mentioned in IRC that he'd like to see the consequences of your actions play out in-game, and while that would be great, we all know it isn't going to happen.  You'll just complete a quest and that's it, quest over.  Move on, nothing to see here.  Skyrim with guns.

But.. there was a huge backlash over NV once again ending at the main quest, in fact it was one of the only criticisms that still stuck around despite New Vegas being better than F3 in nearly all other aspects.

Additionally, why does having an end matter in an open world? Poking at Blanko's desire for visible consequences and then saying "well that won't happen" isn't really a good way to support a permanent ending, since it definitely won't happen if you make the ending anyway. If the main quest has a permanent ending, you're basically forcing players to ignore it entirely during the late game, which doesn't make any sense in the world. If, for example, dragons were trying to destroy the world, would it make sense for the only person who can stop them to just ignore the problem entirely, instead just gallivanting about the world as if nothing is happening?

In New Vegas there is a war. A WAR... going on around you, and you're forced to pretend nothing is happening because attempting to solve the crisis results in a game over. That, to me, is pretty terrible gameplay. What would be different in Skyrim if it ended after the main quest? Right, we'd have the only dragonborn savior pretending nothing is wrong and just ignoring the dragon devouring everyones soul and trying to end the world. He would instead run around trying to become the Archmage of the guild or some shit which won't matter because the world is ending.

Forced endings are bad for games with open worlds and don't make sense in the overall lore of the game. There's no good reason to have one.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on August 08, 2015, 06:57:16 PM
New Vegas was going to have post-game play, but Obsidian didn't have time to implement it because Bethesda was breathing down their necks telling them time's up.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on August 08, 2015, 07:39:37 PM
New Vegas was going to have post-game play, but Obsidian didn't have time to implement it because Bethesda was breathing down their necks telling them time's up.

Also true, the entire upper portion of the Lucky 38 is mapped and modeled, including a helipad, but they never had the chance to use it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2015, 08:25:02 PM
But.. there was a huge backlash over NV once again ending at the main quest, in fact it was one of the only criticisms that still stuck around despite New Vegas being better than F3 in nearly all other aspects.

Additionally, why does having an end matter in an open world? Poking at Blanko's desire for visible consequences and then saying "well that won't happen" isn't really a good way to support a permanent ending, since it definitely won't happen if you make the ending anyway. If the main quest has a permanent ending, you're basically forcing players to ignore it entirely during the late game, which doesn't make any sense in the world. If, for example, dragons were trying to destroy the world, would it make sense for the only person who can stop them to just ignore the problem entirely, instead just gallivanting about the world as if nothing is happening?

In New Vegas there is a war. A WAR... going on around you, and you're forced to pretend nothing is happening because attempting to solve the crisis results in a game over. That, to me, is pretty terrible gameplay. What would be different in Skyrim if it ended after the main quest? Right, we'd have the only dragonborn savior pretending nothing is wrong and just ignoring the dragon devouring everyones soul and trying to end the world. He would instead run around trying to become the Archmage of the guild or some shit which won't matter because the world is ending.

Forced endings are bad for games with open worlds and don't make sense in the overall lore of the game. There's no good reason to have one.

The fact that you're talking about Skyrim at all goes straight to the heart of my problem.  Fallout is not TES.  They both have large, fanciful open worlds as settings and RPG mechanics that encourage extensive character-building, but their themes, stories, and roles of the player characters are very different.  For example, your comparison between the main stories of NV and Skyrim is unfair.  The bulk of NV's main story is you picking a side and then making preparations for a key battle that you know will happen at some point in the future.  There's no hurry.  Nobody is pointing to you and saying, "Only you can save the world, hero of destiny!"  It just so happens that the battle is about to begin by the time you've completed your preparations.  If you feel that there's any kind of urgency hurrying you along the main quest, then you're simply mixing up the gameplay and story.  Obviously the battle at the dam won't begin until you get there, because a video game is hardly going to shut its main character out of the climax - but that doesn't mean that your allies are sitting at the dam, going, "Oh, man, where's the Courier?  We are so fucked without him!"

Furthermore, while the central conflict of any TES game is essentially a hero who has to save the world from a supernatural threat, Fallout's general scope is much more political and societal in nature.  In a TES game, little that you do really matters to society and its population (with perhaps a few exceptions, like the civil war) beyond whether or not you saved the world.  But Fallout is about the choices you make and the world that you leave behind.  To put it another way, the real star of the series isn't the player character, it's the setting itself.  Even F3, to its credit, kind of got this, at least with quests like the one in Megaton and the one with Harold.  To just turn this into TES with guns, a shooter where you skip across the wasteland and blow shit up and nobody really cares what you leave in your wake because it's all about you - well, that's not really Fallout.  Not to me, anyway.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on August 13, 2015, 09:35:23 PM
Your first point again notes that you think the only defining feature between TES and Fallout is the fact that the main quest should end the story in Fallout. I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who thinks that's the only difference. Your second point is a nonsensical opinion because you seem to not understand neither TES nor Fallout. Don't argue just for the sake of arguing, Saddam. It apparently makes you grasp so hard for straws you fell off the ass end of sanity.

Ending the game is unpopular, so Bethesda removed it. I'm sorry you're such a pointless contrarian that you actually liked the single most unpopular feature in the entire series.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2015, 09:42:13 PM
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

I forgot who I was talking to.  How silly of me.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on August 13, 2015, 10:07:40 PM
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

I forgot who I was talking to.  How silly of me.

You're reasoning makes no sense and doesn't come close to supporting your main point. It came across as a "I don't believe this but I'll argue it anyway" word soup which I'm just not into dealing with anymore.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on August 14, 2015, 02:32:58 AM
The fact that you're talking about Skyrim at all goes straight to the heart of my problem.  Fallout is not TES.  They both have large, fanciful open worlds as settings and RPG mechanics that encourage extensive character-building, but their themes, stories, and roles of the player characters are very different.  For example, your comparison between the main stories of NV and Skyrim is unfair.  The bulk of NV's main story is you picking a side and then making preparations for a key battle that you know will happen at some point in the future.  There's no hurry.  Nobody is pointing to you and saying, "Only you can save the world, hero of destiny!"  It just so happens that the battle is about to begin by the time you've completed your preparations.  If you feel that there's any kind of urgency hurrying you along the main quest, then you're simply mixing up the gameplay and story.  Obviously the battle at the dam won't begin until you get there, because a video game is hardly going to shut its main character out of the climax - but that doesn't mean that your allies are sitting at the dam, going, "Oh, man, where's the Courier?  We are so fucked without him!"

None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

Furthermore, while the central conflict of any TES game is essentially a hero who has to save the world from a supernatural threat, Fallout's general scope is much more political and societal in nature.  In a TES game, little that you do really matters to society and its population (with perhaps a few exceptions, like the civil war) beyond whether or not you saved the world.  But Fallout is about the choices you make and the world that you leave behind.  To put it another way, the real star of the series isn't the player character, it's the setting itself.  Even F3, to its credit, kind of got this, at least with quests like the one in Megaton and the one with Harold.  To just turn this into TES with guns, a shooter where you skip across the wasteland and blow shit up and nobody really cares what you leave in your wake because it's all about you - well, that's not really Fallout.  Not to me, anyway.

None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

Great, you just wrote two paragraphs about nothing. Despite Rushy's blatant rushing, I'm going to have to agree with him. Did you just spontaneously forget what we were talking about?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 14, 2015, 04:47:04 AM
None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

I was replying to Rushy and the specific points he made.  He made an argument that relied on a major mischaracterization of NV's main story and an unwarranted comparison to a different game, and ignored key differences between TES and Fallout by lumping them together as "games with open worlds."  I felt that such a flawed argument deserved a response.  The fact that I didn't also expound on a different point does not make my post off-topic.

Quote
None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

I was replying to Rushy and the specific points he made.  He made an argument that relied on a major mischaracterization of NV's main story and an unwarranted comparison to a different game, and ignored key differences between TES and Fallout by lumping them together as "games with open worlds."  I felt that such a flawed argument deserved a response.  The fact that I didn't also expound on a different point does not make my post off-topic.

Quote
Great, you just wrote two paragraphs about nothing. Despite Rushy's blatant rushing, I'm going to have to agree with him. Did you just spontaneously forget what we were talking about?

I was replying to Rushy and the specific points he made.  He made an argument that relied on a major mischaracterization of NV's main story and an unwarranted comparison to a different game, and ignored key differences between TES and Fallout by lumping them together as "games with open worlds."  I felt that such a flawed argument deserved a response.  The fact that I didn't also expound on a different point does not make my post off-topic.

I can unnecessarily repeat myself for extra condescension too.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on August 14, 2015, 04:55:21 AM
So you don't actually have an argument in favor of forced ending. Got it.

In fact, you appear to be (unintentionally) making several arguments in favor of not having a forced ending, while you're blatantly misconstruing Rushy's arguments.

The fact that you're talking about Skyrim at all goes straight to the heart of my problem.  Fallout is not TES.  They both have large, fanciful open worlds as settings and RPG mechanics that encourage extensive character-building, but their themes, stories, and roles of the player characters are very different.  For example, your comparison between the main stories of NV and Skyrim is unfair.  The bulk of NV's main story is you picking a side and then making preparations for a key battle that you know will happen at some point in the future.  There's no hurry.  Nobody is pointing to you and saying, "Only you can save the world, hero of destiny!"  It just so happens that the battle is about to begin by the time you've completed your preparations.  If you feel that there's any kind of urgency hurrying you along the main quest, then you're simply mixing up the gameplay and story.  Obviously the battle at the dam won't begin until you get there, because a video game is hardly going to shut its main character out of the climax - but that doesn't mean that your allies are sitting at the dam, going, "Oh, man, where's the Courier?  We are so fucked without him!"

Not being a "hero's story" gives the story more urgency, not less. That's because the pace of the story is dictated by outside forces, not the player character. There's no reason why the primary factions in NV are waiting for potentially several in-game years for you to arrive, but because they are doing so regardless, it inadvertently turns the game into a "hero's story", which you claim it is not. The fact that nobody in the game speaks in urgency is nothing but sweeping the issues under the rug. Their actions speak for themselves, or in this case, their inaction.

You say it's "simply mixing up the gameplay and story", which is exactly what a good developer should do. Failing to meld the gameplay and the story into an internally consistent world is a failure in game design. There's even a term for it, it's called "ludonarrative dissonance". Allowing post-game play would solve this issue, because with it the player is allowed to pick their own pacing. You can either respond to the urgency necessitated by the factions within the game's story and do optional content after the main quest is over, or you can choose to stick fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la while not giving a fuck about it and make them wait for you forever. Both of these options are fine, because they allow the player to choose how invested they are in the story; with a forced ending, the game is essentially telling you to not be invested at all, unless you're willing to sacrifice a massive amount of optional content.

Furthermore, while the central conflict of any TES game is essentially a hero who has to save the world from a supernatural threat, Fallout's general scope is much more political and societal in nature.  In a TES game, little that you do really matters to society and its population (with perhaps a few exceptions, like the civil war) beyond whether or not you saved the world.  But Fallout is about the choices you make and the world that you leave behind.  To put it another way, the real star of the series isn't the player character, it's the setting itself.  Even F3, to its credit, kind of got this, at least with quests like the one in Megaton and the one with Harold.  To just turn this into TES with guns, a shooter where you skip across the wasteland and blow shit up and nobody really cares what you leave in your wake because it's all about you - well, that's not really Fallout.  Not to me, anyway.

If Fallout were to not be a hero's story (although it is, as I've just now demonstrated), that would only give more reason for post-game play to be allowed, because a forced ending would conclude the player character's story, not the entire game world's story. New Vegas keeps existing and changing after the events of the main story, and the fact that you're not allowed to see any of it only reinforces the game as the "hero's story", because it's about the world you leave behind, not the world itself. Once again, allowing post-game play would only give credence to what you want Fallout to be, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 22, 2015, 07:27:30 PM
Not being a "hero's story" gives the story more urgency, not less. That's because the pace of the story is dictated by outside forces, not the player character...Allowing post-game play would solve this issue, because with it the player is allowed to pick their own pacing. You can either respond to the urgency necessitated by the factions within the game's story and do optional content after the main quest is over, or you can choose to stick fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la while not giving a fuck about it and make them wait for you forever. Both of these options are fine, because they allow the player to choose how invested they are in the story; with a forced ending, the game is essentially telling you to not be invested at all, unless you're willing to sacrifice a massive amount of optional content.

That simply isn't true.  At the start of the game, the conflict is between the player and Benny.  It's entirely personal.  You decide how invested you are in going after Benny, and once that subplot is cleared up, you decide how invested you are in working for the factions that try to recruit you.  The stakes really don't become "urgent" until you're quite a bit into a faction's questline and they confirm that the battle will soon begin.

Quote
There's no reason why the primary factions in NV are waiting for potentially several in-game years for you to arrive, but because they are doing so regardless, it inadvertently turns the game into a "hero's story", which you claim it is not. The fact that nobody in the game speaks in urgency is nothing but sweeping the issues under the rug. Their actions speak for themselves, or in this case, their inaction.

You say it's "simply mixing up the gameplay and story", which is exactly what a good developer should do. Failing to meld the gameplay and the story into an internally consistent world is a failure in game design. There's even a term for it, it's called "ludonarrative dissonance".

They wait around for you for an unrealistic amount of time for the same reason that nobody reacts with shock and disgust if you start teabagging a dead enemy.  It's a video game.  There's only so much you can program into a video game to have the characters react appropriately to the endless idiosyncrasies of players.  All things considered, allowing players to hold off on the final battle (again, taking into account that only it and the previous couple of quests have a particularly urgent feel to them) is a pretty minor ludonarrative disruption.

Quote
If Fallout were to not be a hero's story (although it is, as I've just now demonstrated), that would only give more reason for post-game play to be allowed, because a forced ending would conclude the player character's story, not the entire game world's story. New Vegas keeps existing and changing after the events of the main story, and the fact that you're not allowed to see any of it only reinforces the game as the "hero's story", because it's about the world you leave behind, not the world itself. Once again, allowing post-game play would only give credence to what you want Fallout to be, not the other way around.

This is the only point you've made that I'd agree is a valid argument in favor of not forcing an ending, and if they can do what you described well, then I'm all for it.  I think that would be pretty difficult to do well, though.  Maybe if they had a timeskip at the end of the main quest, like with RDR?  But then I suppose everyone would still be putting off completing it until they finished all the sidequests.

Also, I never said "hero's story," so I don't know what those scare quotes are for.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on August 22, 2015, 08:00:42 PM
That simply isn't true.  At the start of the game, the conflict is between the player and Benny.  It's entirely personal.  You decide how invested you are in going after Benny, and once that subplot is cleared up, you decide how invested you are in working for the factions that try to recruit you.  The stakes really don't become "urgent" until you're quite a bit into a faction's questline and they confirm that the battle will soon begin.

So now you're directly contradicting your earlier assessment that the game is about the game world and not the player character. Yes, pretty much the entire first half of the game is in fact personal, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? I don't need you to start arguing that the game is a hero's story as well, because that would just be sad.

Quote
They wait around for you for an unrealistic amount of time for the same reason that nobody reacts with shock and disgust if you start teabagging a dead enemy.  It's a video game.  There's only so much you can program into a video game to have the characters react appropriately to the endless idiosyncrasies of players.  All things considered, allowing players to hold off on the final battle (again, taking into account that only it and the previous couple of quests have a particularly urgent feel to them) is a pretty minor ludonarrative disruption.

"It's a video game" is not an excuse to ignore flaws. You might think it's a "minor" ludonarrative disruption, but that's entirely subjective; I on the other hand think it's incredibly major and reflects poorly on the game as a whole. Like I said, it's a case of subjective player investment. I fail to see how allowing post-game play wouldn't please everyone in this case.

Quote
This is the only point you've made that I'd agree is a valid argument in favor of not forcing an ending, and if they can do what you described well, then I'm all for it.  I think that would be pretty difficult to do well, though.  Maybe if they had a timeskip at the end of the main quest, like with RDR?  But then I suppose everyone would still be putting off completing it until they finished all the sidequests.

I don't think it would be difficult to do at all. A game like New Vegas doesn't necessitate any changes to landmass or new content to be made for post-game. At most NPCs would have to be moved around to reflect the changes in factions, some NPCs may have to be removed altogether, and all of them could be given new lines of dialogue. It's things a modder could do with the assets already in the game, the only problem being that a modder wouldn't have access to all the voice actors. It's very trivial in the scope of game development.

Instead of simply trying to counter my arguments, I'd like to see any arguments for a forced ending, because frankly, I don't see what a forced ending would accomplish that post-game does not. Like I said, it seems to me like all of your arguments seem to suggest that a forced ending goes against everything you think Fallout is about.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 10, 2015, 03:40:05 AM
So now you're directly contradicting your earlier assessment that the game is about the game world and not the player character. Yes, pretty much the entire first half of the game is in fact personal, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? I don't need you to start arguing that the game is a hero's story as well, because that would just be sad.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  You said that "the pace of the story is dictated by outside forces, not the player character," and therefore the story is full of urgency.  That's not true.

Quote
"It's a video game" is not an excuse to ignore flaws. You might think it's a "minor" ludonarrative disruption, but that's entirely subjective; I on the other hand think it's incredibly major and reflects poorly on the game as a whole. Like I said, it's a case of subjective player investment. I fail to see how allowing post-game play wouldn't please everyone in this case.

If you choose to define this as a flaw (and I seriously doubt that you'd be bothered by this at all), then you will never be satisfied.  Like I said earlier, why don't NPCs react to your bopping up and down on your dead enemies' faces?  Why don't NPCs wander up to you if you're standing still for a few minutes and wave their hands in front of your face?  Why don't you have the option to yell "OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" at people randomly?  Those are all just as much "flaws" as the fact that the climax of the game isn't going to happen without you is.

Quote
I don't think it would be difficult to do at all. A game like New Vegas doesn't necessitate any changes to landmass or new content to be made for post-game. At most NPCs would have to be moved around to reflect the changes in factions, some NPCs may have to be removed altogether, and all of them could be given new lines of dialogue. It's things a modder could do with the assets already in the game, the only problem being that a modder wouldn't have access to all the voice actors. It's very trivial in the scope of game development.

All right, I'll take your word for it.  Do you think that Bethesda could handle it, though?

Quote
Instead of simply trying to counter my arguments, I'd like to see any arguments for a forced ending, because frankly, I don't see what a forced ending would accomplish that post-game does not. Like I said, it seems to me like all of your arguments seem to suggest that a forced ending goes against everything you think Fallout is about.

The brief slideshow lists the consequences of your actions and explains what happens to the places you've visited and the people whose lives you've affected in your adventures, which I find to be a very weighty and satisfying way to end a game.  If those consequences can be shown without needing to end the game, then I'd certainly prefer it to be handled that way.  I'm just doubtful of both Bethesda's ability and desire to implement those changes in-game.

Also, good news:

https://twitter.com/ETDellums/status/639495005220958210

What a relief.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on September 10, 2015, 03:46:57 AM
If you choose to define this as a flaw (and I seriously doubt that you'd be bothered by this at all)

If you're just going to ignore flaws as you see them, we're never going to get anywhere. Ludonarrative dissonance is a major point of discussion in any serious video game critique. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to accept.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 21, 2015, 12:25:25 AM
I understand that ludonarrative dissonance is a genuine issue, but all we're really talking about here is the player's ability to progress through the main story at their own pace, which is such a basic (and highly popular) element of almost all open-world games that I have difficulty seeing it as a "flaw."  So, if and when this element of the gameplay clashes with the story, I'd argue that the writing is what should be amended to accommodate the gameplay, not the other way around.  That would actually fix the issue, whereas your solution would simply allow strict roleplayers to work around it by rushing through the main story.

In other news, here's something about the character system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsFpH4jm-QI
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on September 25, 2015, 09:24:03 AM
Oh boy, you can move your arm around while looking at the Pip-Boy! Truly, this is the Fallout I've been waiting for.

Also those noises and animations are annoying as fuck.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on September 27, 2015, 02:53:41 AM
But there's a more important issue - they got rid of skills.  Why, Bethesda, why?  Why must you continue to dumb down every franchise you have?

That being said, removing the skills is probably preferable to removing the attributes, like they did with Skyrim.  I'd like to see your attributes have a more direct impact on what you can or can't do, and at least there won't be any incongruities like having low charisma, but still successfully persuading everyone due to a high speech level.  Oh, and speaking of speech checks, it looks like they've returned to the probability system of the earlier games, and as I mentioned earlier, that just encourages save-scumming.  It's funny, because Todd mentioned in a video about Dogmeat that they made him immortal for precisely that reason - if he dies, players will just reload, so there's no point in letting him die.  Don't they realize that players will do the exact same thing if they fail a probability-based speech check?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on September 27, 2015, 03:41:35 AM
Yeah, that's bizarre. I am ashamed to admit I am often a savescummer if it's something important, or something I can only do if I pass the speech check. Having a hard line is better.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on September 27, 2015, 03:49:19 AM
It seems like Bethesda is taking the Skyrim route with not wanting the players to specialize in anything. If you take a close look at the perk tree, the first perk in each attribute is to increase the attribute by one, with a maximum of ten ranks meaning maxing out SPECIAL is completely trivial. Furthermore, with every perk being tied to a SPECIAL requirement, some of their placements seem very arbitrary - Lone Wanderer being in the charisma tree, although the perk benefits you only if you don't take advantage of charisma? Or Lady Killer, which is traditionally a very early game perk, is now gated by your investment in a single stat (and it doesn't include the reverse-gender equivalent, confirmed for muh soggy knees)? It seems like they don't want players to build a character to match a specific playstyle, but to have every playstyle be viable regardless of the character build, given how low impact many of these perks seem to be for the investment they require. I find that disappointing, because optimal character building was one of my favourite aspects of New Vegas. Here it seems like your choices barely matter, and you'll probably be able to max out everything anyway.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on September 27, 2015, 04:58:55 AM
but u dont HAVE to!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on October 01, 2015, 02:04:55 AM
Lady Killer...doesn't include the reverse-gender equivalent, confirmed for muh soggy knees

That's because it's a male character.  Presumably a female protagonist will be able to get the Black Widow perk.  However, it does appear that the game won't be retaining the Confirmed Bachelor/Cherchez La Femme perks that NV added.  I guess that's because the protagonist was already married.  Or maybe it's because the people at Bethesda are really petty, and they're scrapping every new element that Obsidian introduced to the series to avoid any implication that they don't already know exactly what's best for the franchise and need ideas from anyone else?  I hope not, but if it turns out that, say, they've gotten rid of the reputation system and gone back to the weird karma thing, I will flip my shit.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on October 01, 2015, 03:01:40 AM
On the notion of shit flipping
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on October 01, 2015, 08:59:11 AM
Or maybe it's because the people at Bethesda are really petty, and they're scrapping every new element that Obsidian introduced to the series to avoid any implication that they don't already know exactly what's best for the franchise and need ideas from anyone else?  I hope not, but if it turns out that, say, they've gotten rid of the reputation system and gone back to the weird karma thing, I will flip my shit.

I don't think they're being vindictive about this, they just have a very specific (and wrong) vision for Fallout in which decision making and any sort of significant loss are replaced with rainbows and unicorn farts and omniscient DJs telling you how cool you are on the Pip-Boy radio. In my opinion it's probably a good thing they aren't trying to follow suit and incorporate the changes Obsidian introduced, they'd only make a hideous mess of it.

As an aside, a song written by Todd Howard called "You're SPECIAL" was supposed to be the main theme to Fallout 4, and Todd was also to perform it live (no lip-sync!) at the Bethesda E3 conference this year, but ultimately Bethesda's PR team decided it was a little too blunt. Below is a complete transcription of the contents of a sheet of paper someone found in a waste paper basket by the remains of Bethesda's booth after E3 ended. The sheet was stained with tears and someone had drawn a heart symbol split in two in the margin with a red marker pen.

"YOU'RE SPECIAL
by Todd Howard

Hey there,
My name is Todd.
To you
I am a God,
And since I'm benevolent
I will bestow
The greatest gift
That I know...

It's a called a ten
In every slot,
It happens when
A choice is not
What you want to seeeeee.
Give praise to me,
And I will give you what you need.

Fallout used to be hard
Not any more
Yes, it used to be hard
Worry no more,
I'll hold your hand,
It will be grand,
And maybe you can jerk me off later -
Because you know my hardness is greater.

Take it away man!

(guitar solo by Slash who is the best guitar player ever)

Oh yeah!

If you don't like it you can always mod it,
If there's a bug just act like you forgot it
I gave you my tens, now you give me yours,
I don't want low Metacritic scores - oh no!
I think you're SPECIAL,
You've got SPECIAL needs,
You wanna keep good karma after evil deeds,
Yeah, I think you're SPECIAL,
You've got SPECIAL needs,
So get on your knees and swallow my seed.

© Todd "The God" Howard 2015 do not steal"
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 02, 2015, 04:52:29 PM
(Oct. 17)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3IlHBBGCIw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kizzTSyvoLQ

Nothing much new here beyond some terrible voice acting and the same sort of very basic dialogue that a game with a silent protagonist would have.  I know we haven't been shown much dialogue so far, but it's kind of odd that Bethesda hasn't made a point to show us any of the more in-depth dialogue that supposedly will justify having a voiced protagonist.  Also, I wish the game didn't have Super Mutants in it.  I suppose it's less of a stretch to have them here than it was in F3, seeing how the Super Mutants' presence on the east coast has now been established, but still, they're representative of so many of F3's flaws.  At the very least, I hope there are less of them in this game.  Vault 87 only ever had a finite amount of FEV, and the mutants' numbers must have been thinned considerably in their many battles with the BoS.  And Boston isn't exactly a short walk from D.C.  Facing endless hordes of them again wouldn't make any sense.

Moar footage:

http://pastebin.com/yLedwhZs

I think it's fairly safe to say at this point that the Super Mutants are once again just going to be generic enemies.  That's disappointing.  And get a load of some of those dialogue options: "GO AWAY," "SARCASTIC," "WATCH TV INSTEAD."  Also, someone helpfully transcribed a full list of all the perks here:

http://www.vg247.com/2015/11/02/fallout-4-all-perks-revealed-by-latest-leak-and-what-they-mean-for-your-character/
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2015, 08:23:13 AM
Well, what other "generic badguy" would you have?
Your options seem to be:
Wild animals
Other humans
Robots
Super Mutants


Granted, my knowledge of fallout is limited to F3.  But still, not much variety of "really tough enemies" for the later progression.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 03, 2015, 09:34:43 AM
How about something.. uh.. new?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 03, 2015, 11:32:05 AM
Well, what other "generic badguy" would you have?
Your options seem to be:
Wild animals
Other humans
Robots
Super Mutants


Granted, my knowledge of fallout is limited to F3.  But still, not much variety of "really tough enemies" for the later progression.

I dunno, how about make up something new? For a start you have a whole wealth of possibilities to explore in the area of mutant flora and fauna, and I don't know if the Institute is supposed to be evil in this game, but at the very least rogue factions within it could be designing and manufacturing deadly animal/machine hybrids, not to mention the incredibly lifelike androids they are apparently capable of producing. It was amazingly dumb to include Super Mutants and Centaurs in F3 and it's still dumb to have them here, not just because it makes no sense to have the Master's creations randomly popping up on the other side of the country, but also because Fallout's premise gives you so much room to manoeuvre that there's literally no reason to repeat yourself.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2015, 12:47:32 PM
Well, what other "generic badguy" would you have?
Your options seem to be:
Wild animals
Other humans
Robots
Super Mutants


Granted, my knowledge of fallout is limited to F3.  But still, not much variety of "really tough enemies" for the later progression.

I dunno, how about make up something new? For a start you have a whole wealth of possibilities to explore in the area of mutant flora and fauna, and I don't know if the Institute is supposed to be evil in this game, but at the very least rogue factions within it could be designing and manufacturing deadly animal/machine hybrids, not to mention the incredibly lifelike androids they are apparently capable of producing. It was amazingly dumb to include Super Mutants and Centaurs in F3 and it's still dumb to have them here, not just because it makes no sense to have the Master's creations randomly popping up on the other side of the country, but also because Fallout's premise gives you so much room to manoeuvre that there's literally no reason to repeat yourself.


So robots and animals mixed together.
Or robots.
Or humans.

Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on November 03, 2015, 02:05:08 PM
...or make up something new?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 03, 2015, 02:14:44 PM
Well, what other "generic badguy" would you have?
Your options seem to be:
Wild animals
Other humans
Robots
Super Mutants


Granted, my knowledge of fallout is limited to F3.  But still, not much variety of "really tough enemies" for the later progression.

I dunno, how about make up something new? For a start you have a whole wealth of possibilities to explore in the area of mutant flora and fauna, and I don't know if the Institute is supposed to be evil in this game, but at the very least rogue factions within it could be designing and manufacturing deadly animal/machine hybrids, not to mention the incredibly lifelike androids they are apparently capable of producing. It was amazingly dumb to include Super Mutants and Centaurs in F3 and it's still dumb to have them here, not just because it makes no sense to have the Master's creations randomly popping up on the other side of the country, but also because Fallout's premise gives you so much room to manoeuvre that there's literally no reason to repeat yourself.


So robots and animals mixed together.
Or robots.
Or humans.

If you're going to ignore most of what I've written, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on November 03, 2015, 03:11:26 PM
We don't know that they won't also have something new.

It's a bit early to say what they're definitively not doing.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 06, 2015, 06:45:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5aJfebzkrM

The Blade Runner influence is obvious, but it's certainly preferable to rehashing ideas from TES and the previous games in the series.  And the "atompunk meets cyberpunk" atmosphere they're hinting at could lend itself to some cool visuals.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on November 06, 2015, 06:52:31 PM
That voice acting is so awful. Also, those facial animations are literally laughable (I literally laughed).
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on November 06, 2015, 10:51:47 PM
Looks pretty fun.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on November 06, 2015, 10:54:58 PM
The bugs in the PC version are going to be absolutely glorious.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 06, 2015, 10:58:12 PM
Also, those who preordered the game on Steam can start preloading it now.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 07, 2015, 04:57:59 AM
On the notion of correcting a mistake I made earlier in the thread:

Also, I don't like that Bethesda is once again going out of its way to ensure that your character has no knowledge or experience of the outside world whatsoever, and that no, you can't come up with your own backstory or motivation.  It's like they don't understand that there are plenty of stories to tell in science fiction without falling back on the whole Campbellian archetype.

This is going to sound really dumb, but somehow, I misinterpreted the brief explanation of the story we were given at E3 and thought that for the bulk of the game, the player character was going to be the son or daughter of the introduction's protagonists, now grown up and with a character design reflecting that of their parents.  I'm not going to bother reviewing the E3 coverage to see what it was specifically that tripped me up, but in my defense, can you tell me that you honestly couldn't see Bethesda doing something like that?  Anyway, I was so relieved to discover a few days later that the PC was actually one of the parents that I couldn't bring myself to really complain about it.  In fact, I actually think it's a fairly neat premise.  Yeah, you have a prescribed backstory again, but at least this time you're an established adult with a military background and an active life, as opposed to:

You're a naive, gee-whiz young kid with zero previous life experience and no idea of what he's doing stumbling headfirst into a world he doesn't understand.  The game sets this out so clearly that there is literally no wiggle room to imagine anything more interesting about yourself or your past.  Maybe you feel conflicted from an event in your past that-NOPE.  Maybe you once had this friend who-NOPE.  Maybe you're seeking amends for-NOPE.  Maybe something interesting once-NOPE.  All you are is a bland and naive young kid, and if you forget it, the game will remind you every chance it gets.

What do the rest of you think about the Rip Van Winkle/Captain America premise?  Also:

<CasterYourMom> Because F3 was unique enough by itself
<beardo> I do have a problem with the voice. Because I can't picture the type of character I want to play having that particular voice
<CasterYourMom> Did they even add hardcore more to F4=
<CasterYourMom> ?
<CasterYourMom> mode*
<beardo> I don't know if it's been announced
<Saddam> I don't think they're keeping anything that NV added
<CasterYourMom> what the shit
<CasterYourMom> it was the proper way of playing fallout
<Saddam> The Correct Way to Play the Game
<beardo> boo le hoo
<Saddam> Like the way they scrapped the gay perks
<CasterYourMom> No more fem fatale lesbian do de doo?
<CasterYourMom> lame
<CasterYourMom> I don't remember if fem fatale was gay or not
<Saddam> No, because in this RPG, it has already been decided that your character is straight
<Saddam> Cherchez La Femme was the lesbian perk
<CasterYourMom> Why not bisexual
<CasterYourMom> like every other fallout game
<beardo> it was the female equivalent of confirmed bachelor
<beardo> just got some unique dialogues with some female NPCs
<Saddam> And you could do extra damage against women
<CasterYourMom> I hope they at least included some kinky perks instead
<Saddam> Of course, Bethesda is too cool for unique dialogues
<Saddam> Instead, it's back to poorly-written persuasions that basically have your character going "Aw, c'mon!"
<beardo> "Fuck you."
<Saddam> All jokes aside, that's the one scrapped improvement from NV that disappoints me the most
<CasterYourMom> I loved hardcore mode. It made everything you did seem like it meant just a little bit more
<CasterYourMom> like you weren't just some invincible player character
<beardo> But you're not going to see what you're going to say anyway
<Saddam> Every single one of F3's speech checks reads like a failed speech check would in NV
<CasterYourMom> too bad new vegas had the shitty legion in it
<CasterYourMom> such a shitty concept
<Saddam> NV's speech checks were both really smart and really funny
<Saddam> The successful speech checks took into account the personality of the character you were talking to
<Saddam> And it was always clear why that would succeed but the failed ones wouldn't
<beardo> lol, Steam says I played Fallout 4 yesterday
<Saddam> Like when House offers to buy the Platinum Chip from you, the failed check is you making a lame joke about him being "chip out of luck" if he doesn't offer more money
<Saddam> The successful one keeps to the serious tone House prefers, telling him that the "market value" of the Chip is higher than what he's offering
<Saddam> It makes sense
<beardo> the flowers of poclypse
<Saddam> Bethesda would have written that check as "Aw, but I want more money than that!"
<Saddam> And sometimes it would work and sometimes it wouldn't
<Saddam> BAW
<CasterYourMom> Aw, but I don't want to pay you a toll
<Saddam> Robot! Let me past!
<beardo> probably due to time constraints, Obsidian didn't have time to add dumb versions of every dialogue option if you play ad unintelligent character.
<Blanko> F3 couldn't really have unique failure lines because the speech checks were a dice roll
<beardo> that was bad
<Saddam> That's my point, it shouldn't have been dice rolls
<Blanko> Indeed
<Saddam> At the very least, they shouldn't have brought them back after NV showed just how much better its system was
<Blanko> I got into habit of quicksaving before every dialogue because savescumming lol
<CasterYourMom> I hate dice roles for important stuff like dialogue
<CasterYourMom> I like getting the most of the game by always maximizing social options
<CasterYourMom> rolls*
<Blanko> Bethesda is now even encouraging savescumming by making quicksaving possible on consoles
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 09, 2015, 11:54:18 AM
"This game will unlock in approximately 14 hours"
I'll be sleeping by then. :(
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 10, 2015, 05:29:53 AM
All right, so due to my l33t haxx0ring skills, I've gotten to play a few hours of F4.  A few of my initial impressions: The options to design your character's looks are an interesting blend of the features from both F3 and Skyrim, and one of the presets is clearly based on the generic Dragonborn that Bethesda used for its marketing of Skyrim.  Also, the option to decide how muscular/large/thin you are is lifted from, no joke, TESO.  However, not having any options for your voice is really lame, especially when you can change your race.  Come on, Bethesda.  If the Saints Row series can give us multiple voices, so can you.

Also on the subject of Skyrim, it looks like the crafting system from that game is being used here.  Weapons and armor don't degrade anymore, and so the repair system of mashing similar items together in your inventory is gone.  It might be a bit different for power armor, because that's being treated a lot differently in this game.  They're more like mechs this time around, as I noted earlier in the thread, and they need to be fueled and maintained.  You do this in special little workshops, which you also need for things like making and improving gear.  And you can store all the useless junk you scrounge up for use of their raw materials, which is a pretty neat twist on the typical Bethesda formula.

As far as the story/lore goes...well, I don't know too much about that yet.  It starts out a lot like F3, with an overlong introduction that starts off the main quest by giving you the very personal motivation of a family member in distress - this time it's your son.  The problem here is that it's very hard to come out of this intro thinking of your character as anything but a sympathetic, lawful good type, and it's clear that must have been the character that Bethesda had in mind when they wrote this game.  You don't get to be a charismatic Wasteland conman, a lunk-headed bruiser, an energy-weapon obsessed tinkerer, or any other unique character you might think up of.  You already have a character.  You're a loving spouse, a devoted parent, a proud veteran of the military, and an all-around decent, upstanding pillar of your community, whether you like it or not.  Hell, this is even reflected whenever you talk to minor miscellaneous characters - your greetings to them are always polite and respectful, calling them sir/ma'am, asking if they're okay, etc.  Yeah, sometimes you have rude or unfriendly dialogue options, and I'm sure that later on in the game you'll be able to do plenty of evil things, but choosing those options feels false and jarring, because it doesn't fit into the archetype that Bethesda has designed for you.  Still, I'd say that the writing is somewhat better than it was in F3 so far, so maybe they'll handle all this well.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 10, 2015, 04:01:45 PM
According to my stats, I've committed 3 murders, but I have no idea when or where.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on November 10, 2015, 04:24:52 PM
My first impression of Fallout 4, and a word of advice: V.A.T.S. is completely fucking awful.

I was going to roll with a V.A.T.S./crit focused build, but I quickly found out that doing so is simply not feasible. V.A.T.S. accuracy has been completely gutted, with your chances of hitting dropping dramatically with distance, and even close by the numbers don't match the previous games at all. The distance at which 3 and NV would put you at a 95% chance to score a headshot, 4 would instead put you at somewhere around 30-40%.

The critical hit meter recharges horrendously slowly, making you able to score a crit once every ten kills or so - and that's if you use V.A.T.S. constantly. Again putting that into perspective, in FO3 you could get a 100% crit chance in V.A.T.S. with just 5 Luck and a sniper rifle. In NV with its slightly more tuned balancing you could get 70%+ crit chance with a crit-oriented build.

The new time-slow-instead-of-time-freeze effect makes a very negligible tactical difference, given that you're frozen in place while your character goes through the motions of cinematic animations while enemies are free to pummel you relentlessly, leaving you defenseless.

I'm probably just going to reroll.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on November 10, 2015, 04:47:37 PM
Actually, now that I'm ranting about this game, let me rant about the perk system as well. You know how a while ago I posted that Bethesda would incentivize the player to level as a jack-of-all-trades, master of none? Little did I know how true that would actually turn out to be, because it turns out that's all you can do.

What I didn't know at the time is that perk ranks above the first ones have level requirements. I know, level requirements for perks have always been a thing in Fallout, so what's the big deal? Well, it becomes a massive problem when you're replacing the entire skill system with perks. That means you have a bunch of perks that are direct equivalents to what the skills used to do in previous games. Deal 20% more damage. Hack 20% more advanced terminals. Lockpick 20% harder locks. Sneaking is 20% more effective. And so on. In previous games you could level a skill to 100 from the get-go and have a clear-cut focus for your character from the beginning of the game. In FO4, though? Have fun waiting until level 40.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 11, 2015, 07:03:21 AM
Some faggot in Diamond City accused me of murdering his son Nelson, and I don't even know who that is. He told me I'm going to pay. Looking forward to it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 13, 2015, 02:00:46 AM
Diamond City is great.  Fenway Park is now a shantytown, Green Monster and all.

Alas, it's one of the few truly great things in this game.  I don't think I've properly stressed how dumb the story is.  F3 was about a son trying to find and reconnect with his wayward father, and F4 is about a father trying to find and reconnect with his wayward son.  Yes, Bethesda, you managed to thematically connect the stories of these two games, but why?  How exactly does knowing that this story is kinda-sorta reversing the family roles in F3 make it a better or more fulfilling story?  And yes, it's "father" specifically, not just "parent," because just as Bethesda means for you to play the game as a generic good guy, they also mean for you to play it as the father, not the mother.  It turns out I was mistaken above when I described the PC as a veteran in gender-neutral terms.  The father is the veteran regardless of whom you play as, and so he's the one who gets a vaguely-heroic backstory as well as the voice-over in the introduction, while the mother is basically just a housewife.  This is his story, not hers.  I'm not bringing this up as a feminist criticism of the game (although if I were, I'd call attention to the fact that the mother is literally fridged in the introduction), but as a sad reflection of Bethesda's refusal to grant players the freedom to decide their own character and their own motivations.

What makes it even worse is that they don't really take advantage of the changes they've made and use them to their full potential.  For example, they want to give the PC a voice.  Okay, then here's an idea - why not hire someone with a distinctive, cool voice for the role?  Not necessarily a huge celebrity, but someone like, say, Keith David or Michael Ironside.  It makes sense that the character who does the most talking throughout the game should have a voice that we want to listen to.  And even the fact that they have a recognizable voice could work in the game's favor as a parallel to the fish-out-of-water setup.  Their voice is the only remnant of familiarity the player can cling to in this strange new world.  But there was no point in doing what they did, hiring a couple of people with such plain, unremarkable, "I'm just a regular guy" voices without a shred of personality or charisma to them.  If they wanted the protagonist to be a blank slate that players can project whatever personality or intentions they want on, then they could have just stuck with the text.

The same thing goes with the Cap/Rip gimmick, which is completely squandered here.  Okay, so is our hero supposed to be grieving for his lost wife and son?  Then how about his grief informs his interactions with the characters and environment to a much greater degree, rather than only coming into play when the player selects dialogue options indicating his grief for his wife or son?  If the idea could be introduced that he's blinded by his grief and desperate for revenge, we'd have the potential for an interesting inner struggle - can the hero keep true to his strong moral upbringing in Pre-War America as he tries to put things right?  And even if he can, should he?  Or, on a lighter note, they could have focused on the hero's shock and amazement at the wacky new world he finds himself in, rather than, once again, only doing so when a dialogue option indicates as such.  For example, we could hear some unique exclamations whenever he sees something crazy for the first time, like Super Mutants or brahmin.  It could help provide both immersion and humor.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 17, 2015, 12:24:09 PM
Here's an interesting review of the game I found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dejO6aiA7bs

I mostly agree with this, with the exception of his opinion of the settlement-building feature, which I found to be boring, clunky, and lacking any real incentive to encourage me to spend too much time with it.  But the largely-procedural quests the game inherited from Skyrim that you can't refuse, the new dialogue system, and the lack of many significant improvements over F3 are every bit as bad as he describes them.  The dialogue in particular stands out as being especially awful, because there's nowhere you can go in the game to avoid it.  You're always going to be talking to someone and wondering whether the "SARCASTIC" option will be a lighthearted joke to break the tension, or a nasty insult aimed at whoever you're talking to.  And speaking of improvements over F3:

if it turns out that, say, they've gotten rid of the reputation system and gone back to the weird karma thing, I will flip my shit.

There isn't an official system like there was in NV, but you do have to manage your reputations with different factions and make choices that exclude others as the game goes on, and there's no annoying measure of karma.  My shit is unflipped.

I suppose it's less of a stretch to have [Super Mutants] here than it was in F3, seeing how the Super Mutants' presence on the east coast has now been established...I hope there are less of them in this game.  Vault 87 only ever had a finite amount of FEV, and the mutants' numbers must have been thinned considerably in their many battles with the BoS.  And Boston isn't exactly a short walk from D.C.  Facing endless hordes of them again wouldn't make any sense.

Then I guess it's a good thing that these aren't the SMs from the Capital Wasteland!  Seriously, these guys are apparently a whole new strain, created by the Institute.  And not only are there no interesting differences between them and the ones we've already seen, they actually look even more similar to the SMs on the West Coast, having a duller shade of gray-green skin rather than the bright yellow-green of the Capital Wasteland ones.  Bethesda has seemingly decided that, just like how the protagonist must always be a vault-dweller who's entirely new to the post-apocalyptic world, SMs are simply part and parcel of a Fallout game.  When Fallout 5 comes around, no matter where they set it, they'll undoubtedly come up with a whole new batch of SMs to serve as generic ogres, as well as a vault for our protagonist to emerge from.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 17, 2015, 07:27:41 PM
Here's me shitting on all the baaaaw in the above posts.

(http://i.imgur.com/RJo9IHd.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2015, 01:02:22 AM
Why is theft so fucked in this game?  Apparently NPCs don't need to actually see you steal something to know that you just stole something.  You can be up a flight of stairs or several rooms away from any possible witnesses, but if you lift something, there's an excellent chance that every single person in the building will automatically sense what you just did and turn hostile.  And there isn't even any indication that they've turned hostile at first.  No, they just continue to go about their business as if nothing is wrong, and only once you step back into their sight do they all pull out their weapons and open fire on you.

And speaking of drawing weapons, why aren't holstered weapons visible?  It's incredibly disconcerting to see weapons popping in and out of hammerspace whenever a character draws or holsters one.  What a bizarre step backwards for the series.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 25, 2015, 06:00:25 AM
Here's me shitting on all the baaaaw in the above post.

(http://i.imgur.com/RJo9IHd.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2015, 06:18:36 AM
Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion, beardo?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 25, 2015, 06:22:28 AM
What discussion?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on November 25, 2015, 08:00:02 AM
The discussion that Fallout 4 is a terrible game
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 25, 2015, 09:47:49 AM
That's not a discussion, that's a baaw. Also, it's good.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on November 25, 2015, 03:48:37 PM
It's bad.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 25, 2015, 05:29:00 PM
Then why is it good?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 26, 2015, 04:55:10 PM
So there's this incredibly retarded quest where a ghoul kid has been trapped in a fridge for 200 years, and somehow emerges perfectly sane and healthy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIvJnjnImfM

Here (https://twitter.com/DCDeacon/status/668802348140109824) is Pete Hines's reaction when someone criticized this on Twitter:

Quote
not interested in discussing how realistic things are in an alternate universe post-apoc game w/ talking mutants and ghouls

Yeah, who cares about internal consistency and a universe that makes sense on its own terms?  It's just a stupid video game!  We can put whatever dumb shit we want into it!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 26, 2015, 05:39:43 PM
Yeah, who cares about internal consistency and a universe that makes sense on its own terms?  It's just a stupid video game!  We can put whatever dumb shit we want into it!

My favourite part is the bit about Jet being pre-war. I can understand Bethesda's writing team making some mistakes with something as dense as Fallout lore, but how they managed to completely forget the fact that Jet was invented by a talking head and player companion in F2 is beyond me. That is of course unless they're going to say that the original games are no longer canon, in which case I don't know if I can even entertain the thought of taking Bethesda seriously ever again.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 26, 2015, 07:22:29 PM
And his reply of "doesn't say what year that was posted" doesn't hold up.  It's clear from the context of those logs that the author works for Vault-Tec, and is dismayed that drugs are being sent to a vault full of recovering addicts as one of the many twisted experiments they were running.  They're definitely from before the war.  Now, I'd probably be okay with a drug very similar to Jet existing pre-war, and that Myron simply recreated it independently, but for them to refer to it by the same name is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on November 26, 2015, 08:33:22 PM
I can't believe Hines actually said that. That's the kind of moronic argument you usually hear from dirt-tier fanboys. "Oh, this plot element doesn't make sense? Well there are dragons in the game osoo haha"
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 27, 2015, 02:12:48 AM
The brief slideshow lists the consequences of your actions and explains what happens to the places you've visited and the people whose lives you've affected in your adventures, which I find to be a very weighty and satisfying way to end a game.  If those consequences can be shown without needing to end the game, then I'd certainly prefer it to be handled that way.  I'm just doubtful of both Bethesda's ability and desire to implement those changes in-game.

And of course, they didn't bother doing either of those.  Hey, anyone want to see the ending to F4?  It's just one quick cutscene, and the only way it varies (very slightly) is if you side with the Institute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0TdlukwjYc

And no, they don't show the consequences of your actions in-game instead of telling you about them, because there are no major consequences to begin with.  Just like with Skyrim, almost all the sidequests you receive are dungeon crawls.  You're not leaving any impact on society by completing them; you're just bringing someone a lost family heirloom, or taking care of a troublesome gang of raiders that respawns after a few days.  I suppose F4 does have the settlement-building going for it, but even if I had been a fan of that - and I wasn't - it's a poor substitute for the interesting quests that let you help shape the world like the ones we saw in F1, F2, NV, and yes, even F3.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 27, 2015, 06:16:53 AM
ok
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 27, 2015, 12:21:11 PM
Hey, anyone want to see the ending to F4?
I don't think I've ever actually said "oh fuck you" to the ending of a game before. Congratulations, Bethesda, that was literally the worst.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 30, 2015, 12:16:14 AM
One thing that's disappointed me a lot more than it really should is the lack of any well-known actors (that is to say, actors known for more than just voice acting).  In previous Fallout/TES games, the high-profile actors could always be counted on to give very entertaining performances, and to Bethesda's credit, they usually did a pretty good job of casting them.  But in F4, it seems like the entire cast is made up of generic bread-and-butter voice actors.*  Lame.  Still, I'd say the game is a slight step forward overall in terms of voice acting.  There's a fairly decent variety, and the actors themselves aren't too bad (with a few notable exceptions, like the male lead).  And here's something that honestly impressed me - the Boston accents are actually pretty good.  That might not sound like a great achievement, but it stands out when virtually every movie set in Boston nowadays is full of actors who apparently think that they should base their accent on how the mayor from The Simpsons sounds.

*This isn't entirely true, upon further investigation.  There seem to be one or two actresses known for their roles on TV, and Ron Perlman, Robert Picardo, and Lynda Carter have tiny roles.  Meh.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on November 30, 2015, 01:03:33 AM
You mean to tell me Bethesda didn't blow a disproportionate amount of their budget on Liam Neeson?

Fallout 4 0/10
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 01, 2015, 03:03:23 AM
I have beaten F4, and now I'm left with a feeling of vague dissatisfaction.  Not unlike F3, so many of this game's storytelling problems can be traced back to Bethesda's bizarre decision to try and make the main quest some kind of personal character drama first and a story fitting the RPG elements second.  I don't want to make any grand declarations about what video games inherently can or can't do, but if they really want to tell a story that's supposed to be this emotional, dramatic, and personal, Fallout probably isn't the right franchise to put it in, and a TES-style freeform RPG definitely isn't the right game to put it in.  They're simply not compatible.  In fact, if Bethesda is going to continue to simplify their games even further in the future, then I'd honestly prefer them to drop the pretense of making an RPG altogether and just focus on making the best action/adventure game they can.  Anything is better than an RPG as half-assed as this one.

Also, relevant:

(http://i.imgur.com/HAIYFOJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on December 01, 2015, 04:38:58 AM
An experimental exploration game set in the universe of The Road would be great.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 04, 2015, 04:53:36 AM
More assorted thoughts on the game.  I really like the power armor, which looks and feels, well, powerful.  It's not just a few pieces of tough armor you slip on or off like any other, it's a big-ass machine you have to clamber into and control like a walking tank.  That's how something like power armor ought to work.  However, while previously in the series, power armor has usually been a late-game feature, here it's handed to you much too quickly.  As in, within the first hour of playing.  And you don't even need training to use it now.  Also, I'm not a fan of how they're fueled by expendable fusion cores that you need to replace.  For one thing, it's inconsistent with the lore, and for another, while I'm sure they included it as an attempt to "balance" how powerful the armor is, it doesn't take long at all for you to amass a large collection of fusion cores, quickly rendering any attempt by Bethesda to limit how overpowered the player will be useless.

On the notion of factions.  I appreciate that you actually get to choose a side this time around, and that there's a lot more moral grayness at play here than there was in F3.  But as the end of the game approaches, it doesn't seem like interaction between factions is any more nuanced than "kill them all."  There's no opportunity to form alliances or convince opposing factions to at least bow out of the conflict, like you could do in NV.  Every faction wants all the others gone, with the one exception of the Minutemen, but they just ignore/are ignored by the others, rather than interacting with them in any different way.  I sided with the BoS, and their decision to destroy the Railroad especially was baffling.  They just mumble something about "potential leaks" and that's it, better slaughter them all.  Bah.

Speaking of the BoS, they're all right.  They're certainly a tremendous improvement over the Boy Scouts of the Round Table in F3.  I have a few issues with their portrayal, though - you're able to join them a bit too quickly and easily, and I wish there was more of a focus on their philosophy itself, rather than simply their end goal of destroying the Institute and wiping out all the synths.  Not that I think it's out of character for them to do that, but as far as I know, encountering Post-War technology is new territory for the BoS, and I'd have liked to have seen (or perhaps played a role in) them work through the facts and decide what to do about the situation.  But when it's already established that of course synths are the enemy, of course they need to die, and BoS soldiers casually toss slurs at them, they run a real risk of seeming like they're more about plain old bigotry than their strict technological ideals; something that I'm certain Bethesda didn't intend.  On a more positive note, though, the quest "Blind Betrayal" is pretty neat.  I won't spoil the details, but it's well-written, has some genuine emotional stakes, and there are multiple ways to resolve it.  Almost like an RPG, in fact.

Finally, I'm very pleased that F4 didn't win any awards tonight.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 04, 2015, 08:58:12 AM
More assorted thoughts about the game.  I really like the power armor, which looks and feels, well, powerful.  It's not just a few pieces of tough armor you slip on or off like any other, it's a big-ass machine you have to clamber into and control like a walking tank.  That's how something like power armor ought to work.  However, while previously in the series, power armor has usually been a late-game feature, here it's handed to you much too quickly.  As in, within the first hour of playing.  And you don't even need training to use it now.  Also, I'm not a fan of how they're fueled by expendable fusion cores that you need to replace.  For one thing, it's inconsistent with the lore, and for another, while I'm sure they included it as an attempt to "balance" how powerful the armor is, it doesn't take long at all for you to amass a large collection of fusion cores, quickly rendering any attempt by Bethesda to limit how overpowered the player will be useless.

On the notion of factions.  I appreciate that you actually have to choose a side this time around, and that there's a lot more moral grayness at play here than there was in F3.  But as the end of the game approaches, it doesn't seem like interaction between factions is any more nuanced than "kill them all."  There's no opportunity to form alliances or convince opposing factions to at least bow out of the conflict, like you could do in NV.  Every faction wants all the others gone, with the one exception of the Minutemen, but they just ignore/are ignored by the others, rather than interacting with them in any different way.  I sided with the BoS, and their decision to destroy the Railroad especially was baffling.  They just mumble something about "potential leaks" and that's it, better slaughter them all.  Bah.

Speaking of the BoS, they're all right.  They're certainly a tremendous improvement over the Boy Scouts of the Round Table in F3.  I have a few issues with their portrayal, though - you're able to join them a bit too quickly and easily, and I wish there was more of a focus on their philosophy itself, rather than simply their end goal of destroying the Institute and wiping out all the synths.  Not that I think it's out of character for them to do that, but as far as I know, encountering Post-War technology is new territory for the BoS, and I'd have liked to have seen (or perhaps played a role in) them work through the facts and come to the decision that the Institution and its synths are a threat and need to be destroyed.  But when it's already established that of course synths are the enemy, of course they need to die, and BoS soldiers casually toss slurs at them, they run a real risk of seeming like they're more about plain old bigotry than their strict technological ideals; something that I'm certain Bethesda didn't intend.  On a more positive note, though, the quest "Blind Bigotry" is one of the best in the game.  I won't spoil the details, but it's well-written, has some genuine emotional stakes, and there are multiple ways to resolve it.  Almost like an RPG, in fact.

Finally, I'm very pleased that F4 didn't win any awards tonight.
Good job on hiding the spoiler regarding BoS, mother fucker.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 05, 2015, 03:11:06 PM
I didn't spoil anything, you don't care about spoilers, and "motherfucker" is one word.  Stop shitposting and actually argue with me about the quality of the game.

But yes, you are a young adult with very little experience when the game properly begins. That seems like the most acceptable starting scenario in any game based around character progression.

No, the most acceptable starting scenario is one where the player can decide for themselves what stage of their life they're in.  That's what every non-Bethesda Fallout title has done, and even Bethesda has done it themselves with every TES title.  Ironically, however, while Skyrim and F4 have done a lot to alleviate my criticisms of Bethesda's earlier games being undermining to the player in the narrative, they've now gone way too far in the other direction, "empowering" the player by having every faction fall in love with them the moment they meet.  There's a middle ground, Bethesda.  Quest givers shouldn't be refusing to give you any context for what they want you to do, nor should they be fawning over you simply for gracing them with your presence.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on December 05, 2015, 03:42:34 PM
It sounds like Bethesda tried to turn Fallout into a Mass Effect styled RPG.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 11, 2015, 11:25:32 PM
<Snupes> I decided to redo the Fallout 4 opening and make the most retarded looking characters I could
<Snupes> And as soon as I get out of the cryo pod I'm unable to move
<Snupes> It takes 10 minutes to do Fallout 4's opening
<Anastas> Le meh
<Snupes> That's not as bad as I thought.
<Anastas> Not the worst they've ever done
<Anastas> Oblivion's took like half an hour if you weren't rushing
<Snupes> Well, 4's took 10 with me doing it as quickly as possible
<Snupes> Subtracting the 15 minutes I spent making the characters
<Rushy> why are you playing fallout 4
<Snupes> I wanted to make the ugliest characters possible and see how quickly I could do the opening.
<Rushy> masochism is a serious problem
<Snupes> You would know, being the resident SC player
<Snupes> w0w, my dude has a magnificent butt
<Saddam> omg sexism
<Saddam> Also F3's intro is the worst
<Saddam> And Anastas's dumb claims about it not inhibiting roleplaying are objectively wrong
<Snupes> Fallout 3's intro sucks
<Anastas> I don't remember saying that lol
<Anastas> But I bet I made some compelling points
<Anastas> I liked Fallout 3's intro
<Rushy> F3's intro is pretty okay, but I don't like the amount of characters that only go unconcious instead of dying
<Anastas> Bring on the downvotes
<Saddam> http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=642.msg47724#msg47724
<Saddam> You also argued that silly point on the old site
<Rushy> open world games shouldn't be designed in such a way that characters necessary for quests can't die before you even start their relevant quest line
<Saddam> I remember
<Saddam> I remember everything
<Anastas> Fallout games have always began with the player character in some sort of specific situation
<Rushy> if only you used that ability to do something useful, instead of shitposting on a forum devoted to the planet being flat
<Saddam> A specific situation, yes
<Saddam> But not a specific point in their life
<Anastas> Tru... it did feel a bit odd to play an older looking character in FO3
<Saddam> Complete with a specific social role (vault loser, apparently), specific family, etc.
<Saddam> Ironically, F4's setup for the player was one step forward and one step back
<Anastas> If they actually had competent writers, I wouldn't mind it if they turned Fallout into a more plot, character driven series
<Saddam> You're given a lot more freedom to decide your past, but your present situation is much more narrowly dictated
<Anastas> And left the sandbox gameplay to the Elder Scrolls
<Saddam> I agree with that
<Anastas> But right now they're trying for this terrible middle ground
<Saddam> But they've got some weird half-TES, half-Mass Effect mashup going on right now, and it doesn't work
<Anastas> Yap. I'm holding off for a bit to allow modders to work their magic. I can't wait for the settlement system to be overhauled
<Rushy> !eightball Is Fallout 4 an objectively good game?
<Supybot> Rushy: About as likely as pigs flying.
<Anastas> With an easy way to manage all of your settlers from one locaiton
<Saddam> The wisdom of Supybot
<Rushy> problem solved
<Saddam> A top-down view of your settlements you could snap in and out of would be great
<Anastas> Yes... and a bulletin board or something with all job listings
<Rushy> SimFallout City 5

Another thing I want to talk about is companions, because here, Bethesda came close to delivering what was needed.  The companions in F4 have distinctive personalities, unique voices, and the option of character development as you spend more time with them.  And in a rare example of a borrowed feature from Mass Effect that actually works in this game's favor, their interactivity with the world around them is improved by having them occasionally take part in the conversations that you have with NPCs, or even talk with NPCs by themselves.  Sadly, what drags it all down is (much like the quests) Bethesda's reliance on automation over scripting, procedure over storytelling, and quantity over quality.  You don't earn your companions' trust and respect by convincing them through dialogue that you share their priorities, or aligning with factions that they agree with.  You earn it through picking locks, hacking computers, climbing into power armor, and other piddly minutiae that no normal person should care about this much.  Okay, there's also accepting and completing quests that they approve of, which makes more sense.  But still, it's nothing that can measure up to how well the companions were handled in NV.

One detail that especially stands out to me is just how concerned Bethesda was of having players alienate and lose access to certain companions, because they bent over backwards to make that as difficult as humanly possible.  I really can't imagine one of them leaving you unless you've been deliberately trying to piss them off as much as you can.  Compare that to NV, where some of the companions could very easily be alienated depending on what you said and who you chose to align with.  There's none of that in F4.  When your companions begin conversations with you after you raise their affinity to a certain level, nothing that you say affects the outcome of the conversation at all, or even their affinity.  They wrap it up with something along the lines of "w0w good talk bro good talk" every time.  And even more annoyingly, most of them don't care which faction you choose to support, with the only exceptions being the companions who were already members of factions - they'll attack you if you destroy their respective faction.  But nobody else cares.  Nick, Strong, Hancock, and Curie apparently have no problem working with someone who's thrown in with the BoS, an organization that literally wants them dead.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on December 12, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
Literally everyone else I know who has FO4 loves it. And it's been getting good reviews overall.

I really don't understand why everyone here seems to dislike it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 12, 2015, 04:30:22 PM
Literally everyone else I know who has FO4 loves it. And it's been getting good reviews overall.

I really don't understand why everyone here seems to dislike it.
Well, edgelords gonna edge.
Can't do nothin' 'bout it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on December 12, 2015, 04:30:45 PM
Literally everyone else I know who has FO4 loves it. And it's been getting good reviews overall.

I really don't understand why everyone here seems to dislike it.

Does everyone have to like F4? If not, I'm not sure why it comes as such a surprise that some people don't think it's all that great.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on December 12, 2015, 07:35:38 PM
Of course not everyone has to like it. But the only people I know who don't like it are here. Even when it's getting overall great reviews, only beardo likes it. Just an observation.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 12, 2015, 10:39:58 PM
Well, I guess I'm able to like a game for what it is without being a nostalgia goggle or a pretentious cunt.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 12, 2015, 10:53:26 PM
It's an entertaining game, but an awful RPG.  Even most of the professional reviews seem to acknowledge the bulk of our criticisms, like the terrible new dialogue system, general lack of choices, and dumbed-down RPG elements.  They're apparently just a lot more forgiving of those flaws.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2015, 11:13:07 PM
It's an entertaining game, but an awful RPG.  Even most of the professional reviews seem to acknowledge the bulk of our criticisms, like the terrible new dialogue system, general lack of choices, and dumbed-down RPG elements.  They're apparently just a lot more forgiving of those flaws.
It's almost as if gaming media had a corruption/culture problem :^)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on December 13, 2015, 12:01:39 AM
Literally everyone else I know who has FO4 loves it. And it's been getting good reviews overall.

I really don't understand why everyone here seems to dislike it.
Because most FES members love two things. They love to be contrarian, and they love to suck ass at everything related to games.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on December 13, 2015, 03:19:56 AM
But Fallout 4 is the easiest game I've played in a long time. It just happens to suck.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 13, 2015, 05:10:46 AM
It's a very fun and entertaining games with many flaws.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on December 13, 2015, 11:32:16 AM
our criticisms

I'm not actually addressing Saddam specifically with this post, it's just that I know people probably think I hate the game too, so...

I'd just like to point out that while I would probably have more criticisms than Saddam does, I have yet to play it (and the way things are looking right now I probably never will), and have only commented seriously on parts of the game that I've actually seen. Make no mistake, what I have seen does look terrible (except for the stuff with the exaggerated facial expressions mod, but Bethesda didn't make that so it doesn't count), for example, more than anything now the game seems to be about you blasting your way through interchangeable squads of cannon fodder, and basically becoming an unstoppable wasteland god along the way. I get that that's one of the selling points of Bethesda's open world games, I just find it becomes very boring very quickly, and I'm not particularly interested in playing through such a game in service of another Heart-wrenching Personal Story™ (or Huge Piece of Shit, whichever you prefer HPS to stand for) the basic plot of which Emil Pagliarulo presumably cobbled together by applying William S. Burroughs' cut-up technique to blurbs from novels featured on the Oprah book club.

This isn't even about what is and what is not Fallout, I fully accept that Bethesda gets to decide what that is now, for better or worse. As far as I'm concerned the direction of the series under their guidance is no longer a Fallout I am interested in, but they're the ones making that decision, and if they'd rather cater to TES fans than Fallout fans, that's cool. Obsidian probably won't make another Fallout title, so the old stuff is pretty much dead and buried as far as the series is concerned today. Maybe the next title will be shipped around to other studios who might conceivably make a good go of it, but I don't really have any hope for that, as doubtless they'll be forced into using the mechanics Bethesda has put forth in their latest offering. Even NV, as much as it was a breath of fresh air at the time, couldn't really escape the problems which F3 standardised, and if a team of Black Isle alumni bolstered by younger talent couldn't do it, I'm not sure what other devs can bring to the table under similar circumstances. Unless they are allowed the time and budget to build up their own vision of Fallout from scratch, I just don't see it, but if Bethesda does decide to diversify in that manner, maybe some good will come of it as a matter of course.

So yeah, no nostalgia goggles, no muh isometric perspective (although those screenshots (http://www.destructoid.com/fallout-4-looks-right-at-home-with-an-isometric-camera-325205.phtml) do look pretty damn good), just acceptance of and a little sadness at the fact that one of my favourite game series of all time is no longer made for me or people like me. It's not all Bethesda's fault, they got the rights because Interplay decided to be amazingly terrible at everything, putting all their money into spin-off titles no one wanted and ultimately going bankrupt ─ Bethesda is just doing what they usually do but with a different paint job, what else could one expect? I can only hope that when I finally get around to it Wasteland 2 will prove to be something that truly brings the post-apocalyptic RPG experience I've been missing all these years into the world of modern gaming, and if not it will at least still be a fun nostalgia trip, not just for the gameplay or the visual style, but also for the music of Mark Morgan, original contributions from whom were sorely missed by me and probably at least a few others in the more recent Fallout titles.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on December 13, 2015, 11:34:15 AM
Literally everyone else I know who has FO4 loves it. And it's been getting good reviews overall.

I really don't understand why everyone here seems to dislike it.

Bethesda games have garnered a lot of dissent from core gamers since Oblivion despite their critical acclaim and casual appeal, and FO4 is no different in that regard. The thing is that in real life people don't go out of their way to bring up things they don't like. That's what internet forums and imageboards are for!

I mean, it's not unusual for literally everyone you know to love Marvel movies, but is it really surprising to you that there are people who don't love them?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on December 13, 2015, 12:28:39 PM
No it must be because everyone who doesn't like what I like is a tryhard fuckwagon who hates things and hates liking things
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: rooster on December 13, 2015, 06:12:33 PM
No it must be because everyone who doesn't like what I like is a tryhard fuckwagon who hates things and hates liking things

I never said that.

I think Blanko hit what I was looking for though. People are more comfortable picking things apart and being generally more negative on forums. Sometimes it just gets exhausting to read. I want you assholes to have fun playing a game rather than seemingly forcing yourself to play something you hate.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on December 13, 2015, 06:32:40 PM
Oh, I know, I was more referencing Franklin. [emoji14]

Usually I'd quit a game I disliked that much, but the Fallout series means enough to me that I wanted to finish it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on December 15, 2015, 02:18:19 AM
The voiced main character is a really stupid addition to such a large open world game. Now I can't play the game as an extremely quiet psychopath who speaks to his victims with his mind.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 15, 2015, 04:55:18 AM
And I can't play the game as a guy who isn't awkward and stilted as all hell.  Although there's probably a mod to get rid of the PC's voice by now.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 15, 2015, 06:09:55 AM
http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/103/?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 15, 2015, 10:00:45 PM
http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/103/?

All this does is mute the sound of the PC's voice.  I still have to watch him mouthing the words silently.  BAAAWWWWWW.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 16, 2015, 09:21:58 AM
Well it's the best you can get. Deal with it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 16, 2015, 08:57:02 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3015398/software/the-10-best-pc-games-of-2015.html#slide6

"Yeah, the game's pretty much a piece of shit, but mods make it marginally better.  Well done, Bethesda!"

To balance my constant bawing with something positive, at least Bethesda didn't rehash the Enclave in F4.  I honestly wouldn't have been surprised going into this if they had been a faction again.  You can get your hands on a set of Enclave power armor, though, and it's the strongest in the game.  That's fine.  Really, it's how later installments in a series ought to acknowledge the previous titles, just with little nods to continuity here and there.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on December 16, 2015, 10:20:59 PM
Enclave DLC, I can guarantee it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 16, 2015, 11:15:26 PM
You can get your hands on a set of Enclave power armor, though, and it's the strongest in the game.  That's fine.  Really, it's how later installments in a series ought to acknowledge the previous titles, just with little nods to continuity here and there.
You can actually get a whole lot of those.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on December 17, 2015, 12:30:53 AM
The best thing about Fallout 4 is that it probably made Bethesda a ton of money, so hopefully that means they'll do a bang-up job on Elder Scrolls 6. I'd like to see the Dwemer make it in as a playable race somehow.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 17, 2015, 01:10:32 AM
The best thing about Fallout 4 is that it probably made Bethesda a ton of money, so hopefully that means they'll do a bang-up job on Elder Scrolls 6.

Positive reinforcement doesn't usually encourage a change of habits.

Quote
I'd like to see the Dwemer make it in as a playable race somehow.

You're trying to provoke the lorebeards here, but I'm sure Bethesda could find a way to do that if they wanted to.

You can actually get a whole lot of those.

Don't be pedantic.  But yes, power armor is far too plentiful in this game.  Who the hell thought that "raider power armor" was a good idea?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 17, 2015, 01:20:51 PM
"The Dwemer didn't disappear. They were sent to the future."
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 17, 2015, 08:03:52 PM
So, I started playing this at my brother's, only had time to get to the Concorde Town Hall. I pretty much agree with all the criticism that's been levelled at it so far. After a Jessica Jones binge on Netflix, I imagined my character as I bitchy, cynical pessimist who is left traumatised by everything that happens in V111. Not only is the game clearly meant to be the man's story (He introduces the game in first person, his military experience is what secures your vault position, etc.) but it seems to be impossible to play anyone but a bright-eyed bushy-tailed Hero from the Vault. I have to ask, is this just a consequence of the game holding your hand a little too tightly at the start or do you really not have much of a choice in any interaction in the game?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on December 17, 2015, 11:45:36 PM
No, it basically continues like that. The dialogue options are basically "Question, then I'll help", "Yes of course I'll help!", "No (but actually yes I'll help)", and "Fuck you you worthless asshole (but yes I'll help)".
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 18, 2015, 01:46:54 AM
And it's not even just when you're receiving quests.  It's amazing how many times that you'll simply be having a discussion with someone and then be given a pseudo-choice that just leads to you expressing the same view in four slightly different way, even though it wouldn't impact the game at all to let you have your own opinion.  For example, when Father is trying to win you over to the Institute's side, he talks about how awful the post-apocalyptic world is and predicts that humanity's attempts at restarting civilization are all doomed to fail.  Then he asks you if you can honestly disagree with him - and guess what?  You can't!  If I'm remembering correctly, your options are basically, "Yes, you're right," "Damn right," "I don't know - uh - well...yes, you're right," and "No!  No, I mean - no...no, you're right."  Why can't I fucking disagree with him?

I'll admit that Father does have a point about the shittiness of the outside world, though.  The east coast seems to be locked in a state of perpetual chaos, which is very strange when the west coast has made significant strides in rebuilding civilization.  I don't know why Bethesda feels the need to keep setting their games further and further past the time of the bombs falling.  The chaotic state of the wasteland would make a lot more sense if they kept it around the time of F1.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 18, 2015, 01:51:21 PM
That's disappointing.

It was really jarring when my character who just watched mysterious people steal her potato baby and kill her husband, woke up to discover everyone she ever knew dead, and emerged into an irradiated Hell, meets a group of friendly survivors and her dialogue options don't include:
"What the f*** is going on? What's happened to the world? Some people stole my spud kid and killed my hubby, do you know about anyone like that?"

But instead gives you the option of "Minutemen? So I guess I went back in time, too lol." and "Of course I'll help you get a power armour suit up and running and help you mow down people who, for all I know, might be the good guys here."

I don't mind too much that an RPG tells me broadly what my character is going to be - I like the Deus Ex series - but if you're going to sell me the idea that I can make my own choices in the world, don't make those choices illusory. Actually, Deus Ex gives a great example of  decision-making in an RPG done right. Adam is given the choice of upgrading himself with a free upgrade to stop frequent debilitating and annoying glitches. If you follow the usual "Yes of course I'll do thie thing you told me to, narrative" decision then a later boss can use the upgrade to disable all your powers and leave you practically defenceless in a really hard fight, but if you say 'no,' then when he presses the button, you just smile and you can face him with all your powers intact. It's just a little decision which doesn't hugely affect the the story, but it does mean you actually have decisions which make a difference to how the game is played.

Imagine if, when the VaultTec guy came calling you really could just tell him to get stuffed and slam the door in his face. When the klaxons start blaring, you're not let through by the national guard to V111 and you have to navigate a tricky conversation tree to get them to register you at the last moment.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 19, 2015, 11:45:59 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMUBqXkijAw

No, Jim, this is not progressive.  This is just Bethesda being lazy.  Also:

(http://i.imgur.com/W0G9MQr.png)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on December 20, 2015, 10:59:49 AM
Come now, Saddam. Can't have the console generation be forced to use their heads, now can we?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Vongeo on December 23, 2015, 02:08:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMUBqXkijAw

No, Jim, this is not progressive.  This is just Bethesda being lazy.  Also:


RIGHT! That fucking guy. I would understand his point if they were like actively acknowledging it, but they don't right?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: GeneralD on December 26, 2015, 08:06:15 PM
Hey, if you guys want it to be challenging all you have to do is turn the difficulty up to Survival mode. Then you get the tension of not knowing whether that thousand rounds of ammunition you bought will be able to get you past those two mirelurks, or if you'll face the terrifying ordeal of having to punch them to death while walking backwards and mainlining your hundred stimpaks.

Seriously though, I don't know what anyone else was expecting from this given that this has been the trend Bethesda's followed since Oblivion. It's just nice to see a little[i/] bit of depth in the inventory/crafting systems that gives the mountains of crap lying around some use. The benefit of these games is that they're eminently modifiable, so you can already get mods that make the game difficult without being tedious.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 28, 2015, 05:06:28 AM
Seriously though, I don't know what anyone else was expecting from this given that this has been the trend Bethesda's followed since Oblivion.

Personally, I expected something along the lines of what Skyrim felt like compared to Oblivion.  Make no mistake, Skyrim had plenty of flaws, and I certainly don't think as highly of it now as I did when I first played it, but it wasn't afraid to distinguish itself from its predecessor, and in fact made a ton of improvements.  The dialogue was much more naturalistic, and even let you display a rudimentary personality in your choice of responses.  The environment was bold and striking.  The history and lore behind the setting, and how the current story fits into it, were unique and distinctive in a genre that usually seems to aspire to homogeneity (don't even start, Rushy).  There were plenty of memorable towns, there was a fascinating culture to the population, etc.  And they even got some fantastic actors like Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow to lend some gravitas to the proceedings.  Again, there were flaws, the two that stuck out the most for me being the poor quest design and removal of the attributes, but it was still a bold step for the series, and Bethesda clearly put a huge amount of time and effort into it.

By contrast, F4 is mostly just more of the same from F3.  The setting is basically the same - it's neat to see some of the landmarks of Boston, sure, but they're few and far between, and when you get down to it, it's pretty hard to tell one major city from another when you're just picking through the rubble.  The buildings you can explore are the standard factories, hospitals, offices, etc. that we've all seen before.  The enemies are usually the standard Super Mutants/generic raiders/zombies feral ghouls.  The main quest is once again a sappy, cringey melodrama with a prescriptive role for the protagonist to fit into, and as I noted earlier, it's basically a role-reversal of F3's story.  I could probably go on, but the point is that they didn't have to do any of this.  Like Crudblud said a few pages back, the Fallout setting is fanciful enough to let you get away with including pretty much anything you want.  Set it in Alaska and have Russia invade.  Set it on an island a post-war nation is trying to colonize where the protagonist stumbles onto Things Man Was Not Meant To Know in its ancient ruins.  Set it on a pre-war moon base where the current inhabitants are trying to decide whether or not they should try to return to Earth.  It's not hard to come up with ideas that don't rely on elements we've already seen.

A design document from Bethesda for F4 has been leaked:

(http://i.imgur.com/UtXp2l8.jpg)

Also, there's this, which is very real and in no way a joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2a3TCXfHFA
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 16, 2016, 06:05:45 AM
There isn't a whole lot of information in F4 on what happened to the Capital Wasteland from F3, but some of the dialogue from generic BoS members indicates that in the ten years since the events of that game, the wasteland is now even more chaotic and lawless than ever before, overrun with raiders and SMs, and the BoS has basically lost any real control over the area.  Project Purity, the BoS's war with the Enclave, everything the Lone Wanderer and the other characters of F3 fought so hard to achieve...it was all for nothing.  I'm not sure why Bethesda would do something like this.  I can understand them wanting to go somewhat darker and edgier after F3's whimsical worldbuilding and its epic/heroic/TES-inspired story, but there are better ways to achieve that tone than stomping all over previous games.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on January 16, 2016, 07:15:44 AM
There isn't a whole lot of information in F4 on what happened to the Capital Wasteland from F3, but some of the dialogue from generic BoS members indicates that in the ten years since the events of that game, the wasteland is now even more chaotic and lawless than ever before, overrun with raiders and SMs, and the BoS has basically lost any real control over the area.  Project Purity, the BoS's war with the Enclave, everything the Lone Wanderer and the other characters of F3 fought so hard to achieve...it was all for nothing.  I'm not sure why Bethesda would do something like this.  I can understand them wanting to go somewhat darker and edgier after F3's whimsical worldbuilding and its epic/heroic/TES-inspired story, but there are better ways to achieve that tone than stomping all over previous games.

tbh I can believe that happened because the Capital Wasteland in F3 was populated exclusively by complete fucking idiots.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2016, 11:03:23 PM
There isn't a whole lot of information in F4 on what happened to the Capital Wasteland from F3, but some of the dialogue from generic BoS members indicates that in the ten years since the events of that game, the wasteland is now even more chaotic and lawless than ever before, overrun with raiders and SMs, and the BoS has basically lost any real control over the area.  Project Purity, the BoS's war with the Enclave, everything the Lone Wanderer and the other characters of F3 fought so hard to achieve...it was all for nothing.  I'm not sure why Bethesda would do something like this.  I can understand them wanting to go somewhat darker and edgier after F3's whimsical worldbuilding and its epic/heroic/TES-inspired story, but there are better ways to achieve that tone than stomping all over previous games.

It's possible they took all the data from players and what they did, analyzed it, and found that most players just killed anyone they wanted.  Which was also everyone they could.

So they made the history match.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on January 18, 2016, 05:12:32 AM
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2cppz4i.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 18, 2016, 04:37:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFMn4bVmVig

I knew there was more to the Combat Zone than just what they gave us in the game - yet another place full of generic raiders to kill.  I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened with the robot racetrack in Easy City Downs.  Also, it was pretty disappointing to hear the commentator stretching so much to avoid ending the video on a bad note.  "Well the fact that these game files even exist shows that Bethesda still cares (???) and besides modders will hopefully salvage the game."
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on January 18, 2016, 09:23:20 PM
Patricia writes for Kotaku, and if you call Fallout 4 a bad game it ignites a shit storm in the community, so most reviewers there tiptoe the edge of actually saying it despite the fact that their reviews reek of it. It's annoying.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on January 19, 2016, 06:55:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFMn4bVmVig

I knew there was more to the Combat Zone than just what they gave us in the game - yet another place full of generic raiders to kill.  I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happened with the robot racetrack in Easy City Downs.  Also, it was pretty disappointing to hear the commentator stretching so much to avoid ending the video on a bad note.  "Well the fact that these game files even exist shows that Bethesda still cares (???) and besides modders will hopefully salvage the game."
Sounds like they cut a generic arena style combat that is in every other RPG. If they had included it, the anti-Bethesda malcontents would just call it a copy of (insert RPG that has this overused mechanic).
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2016, 06:12:36 AM
But arena fights are nothing new to the series.  F3 and NV had them, and F2 had boxing matches.  And even if it did come across as derivative, that's no reason to outright scrap it in favor of just having you kill everyone immediately as usual.  No, I'm certain that its removal had nothing to do with Bethesda's artistic vision for the game.  They cut it for technical reasons - most likely either laziness, incompetence, or them simply running out of time.  On a related note:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/44sgi2/light_spoilersafter_a_lot_of_thought_i_was/

I'm really glad to see that the fan backlash (for lack of a better word) is still going strong, even on mainstream websites like reddit.  It may seem like too little too late when the major reviewers have already handed out their customary gushing reviews, but if this keeps up, Bethesda may be forced to take notice of how dissatisfied so many of their customers are.  For example, IIRC, some of the bosses behind Star Trek: Into Darkness and Prometheus have taken notice of the very vocal hatedoms their movies have garnered on the Internet and promised to do better with future installments, despite the fact that they both were reasonably well-liked by critics.  Maybe something similar to those situations might happen here.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on February 10, 2016, 06:27:11 AM
I love how everyone dances around actually calling the game anything less than "great". Everyone punctuates their descriptions of all the game's flaws and disappointments with "don't get me wrong, I love it (seriously, I do [really, I love this game!]!)!" Kotaku's been raining criticism nonstop on the game from day 1 and even they're seemingly afraid to say it's not a good game. It's such a weirdly specific trend.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 20, 2016, 04:58:57 AM
https://bethesda.net/#en/events/game/fallout-4-add-ons-automatron-wasteland-workshop-far-harbor-and-more/2016/02/16/77

Bethesda has put so much hard work into their DLC that now they want you to pay them even more!  At least I've already bought the season pass.  Anyway, while the Far Harbor add-on looks potentially interesting, I'm concerned that it'll be more of the Lovecraftian nonsense that we saw in the Cabot questline, which is really not a good fit for this series.

http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/103/?

All this does is mute the sound of the PC's voice.  I still have to watch him mouthing the words silently.  BAAAWWWWWW.

Ah, but by turning off the dialogue camera in the options, I am spared the awkwardness of seeing my own character mouthing his lines.  It's much better now, a lot like how the previous two games in the series handled dialogue.  I recommend everyone try it. 

http://www.polygon.com/2016/2/19/11057096/dice-award-winners-announced

Oh, for fuck's sake.  My hopes that Bethesda might actually notice the rumblings of dissatisfaction under the general wave of hype-fueled 9/10 reviews just went up in smoke.  They've just been given all the encouragement they need to continue making every game dumber and simpler than the last.  I might even be angrier by it winning "Best RPG" than GotY.  It's an open-world action game, but it's not an RPG.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 22, 2016, 02:49:46 PM
lol, Saddam is mad.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 22, 2016, 09:24:04 PM
I am mad, yes.  Here, have a comic from a dumb fanboy:

(http://i.imgur.com/Pr9CAfJ.jpg)

I love how the artist uses an example of something that isn't actually in the game to demonstrate how fun F4 is.  For it to be accurate, it would show the fan killing a group of raiders and raving about how fun it is, while another frame shows us that he's already done that, and nothing but that, hundreds of times before.  Here's a better comic:

(http://i.imgur.com/VjX8Z6Y.png)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 23, 2016, 05:39:53 PM
Stop having fun playing shitty games that I hate.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Fortuna on February 23, 2016, 05:51:54 PM
Where is the fun in a game you can't lose at? 20 minutes into the game and you have power armor. This represents a wider problem in our society where everyone thinks they are destined for some greater purpose, and to be able to get there without any ingenuity or work. Here, I found a better game for all of the ones who think Fallout 4 is completely amazing:

(http://cdn.toysrus.com.au/www/732/files/576794_fisher_price_rock_stack.jpg)

Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 23, 2016, 07:04:22 PM
lol, fortuna is mad.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 23, 2016, 07:28:05 PM
Stop having fun playing shitty games that I hate.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 23, 2016, 08:41:56 PM
Please stop shitposting.

Where is the fun in a game you can't lose at? 20 minutes into the game and you have power armor. This represents a wider problem in our society where everyone thinks they are destined for some greater purpose, and to be able to get there without any ingenuity or work.

While I agree that this sort of pandering and undeserved fawning over the player character is a big problem with Bethesda's last couple of games, I disagree with you as to its cause.  Games like NV - or, to give a more recent example, TW3 - have shown that it's entirely possible for more complex RPGs to have wide commercial appeal and win critical acclaim.  If Bethesda made a TES/Fallout title that returned the series to its RPG roots, it would still be a huge hit, if for no other reason than its brand.  Bethesda continues to dumb down and simplify their games not because it's what their audience wants, but because they think it's what their audience wants.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 23, 2016, 10:25:47 PM
Please stop shitposting.
Reported for memberating. Enjoy your 100 day bum.

Bethesda continues to dumb down and simplify their games not because it's what their audience wants, but because they think it's what their audience wants.
How far up your own ass do you have to be to think you know more about the market demands than a company that's been thriving in this market for years, and certainly has paid a lot of money into market research? The direction the games take may not be what you want, but they're making a ton of money and Fallout 4 crushed it in the sales numbers.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2016, 01:49:45 AM
How far up your own ass do you have to be to think you know more about the market demands than a company that's been thriving in this market for years, and certainly has paid a lot of money into market research?

The direction the games take may not be what you want, but they're making a ton of money and Fallout 4 crushed it in the sales numbers.

This is just an appeal to authority, and a particularly weak authority at that.  Yes, I think I know more about what the market wants than the people at Bethesda.  They're obviously not very good at their jobs.  I don't see any reason to assume that they're much better at market research.  As it is, the way they lifted only the most superficial elements of the games they were inspired by suggests that they didn't understand at all what people liked about those games to begin with.  For example, it wasn't the dialogue wheel itself with its short little prompts for possible responses that people liked about Mass Effect's dialogue, it was the way you could demonstrate a strong personality, develop complex relationships with the other characters, change the flow of the game dramatically depending on how a conversation went, etc.  But in F4, you're playing as a stock blank slate protagonist giving stock yes/no answers.  The dialogue wheel serves no purpose but to (very poorly) disguise this.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 24, 2016, 03:33:54 AM
Yes, I think I know more about what the market wants than the people at Bethesda.  They're obviously not very good at their jobs.
That far everybody. You must be that far up your own ass.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/16/fallout4-is-quiet-best-seller/
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Fallout-4-Has-Made-Tons-Money-So-Far-98947.html
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2016, 04:36:14 AM
Wow, what a surprise, a game from a very popular developer in a very popular series was a commercial success!  It's almost as if that's why it was so popular to begin with.  It wasn't successful because it had a voiced protagonist, nor because it had a hollow dialogue system that superficially resembled Mass Effect's, nor because it had a Heart-Wrenching Personal Story™ about a separated family, nor because it scrapped skills entirely and gave only the slightest nod to character-building with a perk chart, nor because 99% of the game is just killing and looting.  It was successful because it was a Bethesda game and a Fallout game.  Nobody asked them to simplify the game or dumb it down.  Nobody wanted them to.  Bethesda chose to do so, and as a result, that's the game we ended up playing.  It means no more than that.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 24, 2016, 04:40:33 AM
Nobody wanted them to.
Do you have any evidence for this outlandish claim? Because the market clearly indicates that Bethesda knows what they're doing. I loved the game, so I don't think you can fairly generalize your dissatisfaction to everyone.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2016, 04:57:58 AM
Nobody wanted them to.
Do you have any evidence for this outlandish claim? Because the market clearly indicates that Bethesda knows what they're doing. I loved the game, so I don't think you can fairly generalize your dissatisfaction to everyone.

And what was it that you loved about the game?  Being saddled with the voice of a dull Troy Baker-wannabe?  Four different ways of saying "yes" in dialogue?  The poetic tragedy of your never-ending search for your virtual son, whom you undoubtedly felt a very real connection to?

Or was it the more standard elements of the game, like exploring new locations, finding quests to do, and killing enemies in creative and spectacular ways?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on February 24, 2016, 05:16:48 AM
It's fun. Pure and simple.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on February 24, 2016, 07:45:58 PM
It's fun. Pure and simple.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 14, 2016, 02:53:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyVQ9KaPxRI

Also, we have a trailer for the first add-on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMY0IETkDrU

Uh, maybe designing robots will be fun?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on March 14, 2016, 04:11:16 PM
It looks fun.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 14, 2016, 04:37:28 PM
Can confirm it will be fun: All Bethesda related things are fun.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on March 14, 2016, 05:27:25 PM
Can confirm it will be fun: All Bethesda related things are fun.
Weren't you talking just the other day about how boring Morrowind is?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 14, 2016, 05:30:36 PM
Can confirm it will be fun: All Bethesda related things are fun.
Weren't you talking just the other day about how boring Morrowind was?
I do say a lot of wacky shit, but I never played Morrowang much, so I don't think so.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 06, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjASHR7F79Q

On the notion of paying for mods.  No, but seriously, what's the point of building monster cages and deathtraps?  Who are you going to use them on?  Companions?  Settlers?  Granted, this would be pretty cool if it were for a multiplayer game, but it seems like a waste here.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on April 07, 2016, 12:22:19 AM
On the notion of paying for mods.  No, but seriously, what's the point of building monster cages and deathtraps?  Who are you going to use them on?  Companions?  Settlers?
Things that attack your shit, duh.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 05, 2016, 01:27:24 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0wSCFBJcSs

Literally the very first thing we hear is "Please, bring my daughter home."  You know, just in case the parallels to Point Lookout weren't obvious enough.  And it just isn't Fallout unless the main story is a sappy, sentimental family melodrama.  Fuck you, Bethesda.  Also, nice re-using of geckos from NV, you fucking lazy hacks.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 05, 2016, 11:45:37 AM
Please stop shitposting.

Where is the fun in a game you can't lose at? 20 minutes into the game and you have power armor. This represents a wider problem in our society where everyone thinks they are destined for some greater purpose, and to be able to get there without any ingenuity or work.

While I agree that this sort of pandering and undeserved fawning over the player character is a big problem with Bethesda's last couple of games, I disagree with you as to its cause.  Games like NV - or, to give a more recent example, TW3 - have shown that it's entirely possible for more complex RPGs to have wide commercial appeal and win critical acclaim.  If Bethesda made a TES/Fallout title that returned the series to its RPG roots, it would still be a huge hit, if for no other reason than its brand.  Bethesda continues to dumb down and simplify their games not because it's what their audience wants, but because they think it's what their audience wants.

I think they're chasing a different audience.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 05, 2016, 06:51:24 PM
Literally the very first thing we hear is "Please, bring my daughter home."  You know, just in case the parallels to Point Lookout weren't obvious enough.  And it just isn't Fallout unless the main story is a sappy, sentimental family melodrama.  Fuck you, Bethesda.  Also, nice re-using of geckos from NV, you fucking lazy hacks.
I bet you'll still buy it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on May 05, 2016, 06:53:07 PM
I've already bought it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 05, 2016, 09:56:17 PM
I got the season pass for the game back when I was hoping it would be good.  Last time I ever pre-order a Bethesda game.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on May 20, 2016, 05:40:41 AM
Finished Far Harbor main quest tonight. It has some cool looking new mutated giant animals as well as some new weapon and armour types, which is cool, but I was unfortunately not too impressed with the main story. Go figure.
Still haven't explored the entire island, and with all the thick fog and radiation everywhere, the exploration isn't all that fun either.
Protip: Brind Nick with you.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on May 21, 2016, 05:03:27 AM
Holy shit, there are even more Super Mutants in Far Harbor.  I don't believe it.  Why, Bethesda?  Why do you keep rehashing these guys over and over?  They're not particularly interesting (well, the ones on the West Coast are, but the variants that Bethesda has introduced are just mindless savages).  They're not particularly iconic.  There is no reason why they need to be so ubiquitous in the series, and especially not when it stretches the lore's plausibility to this degree.  Oh, but I'm forgetting the wise words of Pete Hines (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=642.msg81563#msg81563) - this is a fanciful universe where things happen that are impossible in ours, which means that there are no rules to how it all works and nothing has to make any sense. ::)

Aside from that bullshit, this add-on isn't too bad, at least so far.  Like beardo mentioned, there are some neat new creatures and gear, and I love the setting.  I really feel like the art team were hampered in the base game by the requirement to make such a generic ruined city that already looked and felt way too similar to what we had in F3.  Here, they were free to be creative, and the big, spooky island they've designed, with its melancholy, foreboding atmosphere, is a welcome departure from the dull Emmerich vibe of the Commonwealth.  I don't expect to be wowed by the story - what I've seen of it so far is really just more of the same "Robots are people too!" theme from the base game - but I think we're all long past caring about that.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on May 21, 2016, 06:17:54 AM
I almost felt bad killing the giant hermit crabs.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on May 24, 2016, 05:44:12 PM
It's a minor point, but I like how the setup for this add-on manages to reduce the sappiness and sentimental factor of searching for a missing family member by having you be a private detective who's formally hired to search for her.  You're not doing this because feeeeeeeeeelings (at least not if you don't want to), you're doing it because it's your job.  It professionalizes matters, much like being a courier in NV did.  Then I got to thinking - wouldn't this have been a much, much better setup for the base game?  You start out as a private detective, you get a very unusual case regarding missing people from a mysterious client, and the main story starts.  Instead of "the Sole Survivor," the PC is "the Detective."  Now there's a good reason why people will give you quests - it's your job.  The ludonarrative dissonance of being free to wander off and do your own thing is resolved if it's no longer your child who's in danger.  And there are plenty of different approaches a detective could take to their work that would support a number of different playstyles.

But if Bethesda's two Fallout titles are enough to show a pattern, then it looks like they don't want to begin a game with the PC already established in the post-war world.  We're always going to have to play as the naïve newcomer who's just emerged from a vault, and I don't understand why.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on May 24, 2016, 06:51:44 PM
Because Fallout 1 did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Blanko on May 24, 2016, 06:57:16 PM
But if Bethesda's two Fallout titles are enough to show a pattern, then it looks like they don't want to begin a game with the PC already established in the post-war world.  We're always going to have to play as the naïve newcomer who's just emerged from a vault, and I don't understand why.

The narrative benefits of having the player character be clueless are obvious - it ensures that it's always natural for the PC to ask about anything happening in the game world and using it as a device to educate the player in the process. If your character is an already established part of the world and you have them ask who some important figure is or where to go, you'd have to wonder, "why doesn't my character already know this?"
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on May 24, 2016, 08:16:17 PM
tbh they should try just being good at fitting that stuff into the story and world naturally, so they wouldn't have to hamfistedly information kiosk it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Particle Person on May 25, 2016, 05:01:43 PM
But if Bethesda's two Fallout titles are enough to show a pattern, then it looks like they don't want to begin a game with the PC already established in the post-war world.  We're always going to have to play as the naïve newcomer who's just emerged from a vault, and I don't understand why.

The narrative benefits of having the player character be clueless are obvious - it ensures that it's always natural for the PC to ask about anything happening in the game world and using it as a device to educate the player in the process. If your character is an already established part of the world and you have them ask who some important figure is or where to go, you'd have to wonder, "why doesn't my character already know this?"

amnesia :4)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on May 25, 2016, 10:40:33 PM
But if Bethesda's two Fallout titles are enough to show a pattern, then it looks like they don't want to begin a game with the PC already established in the post-war world.  We're always going to have to play as the naïve newcomer who's just emerged from a vault, and I don't understand why.

The narrative benefits of having the player character be clueless are obvious - it ensures that it's always natural for the PC to ask about anything happening in the game world and using it as a device to educate the player in the process. If your character is an already established part of the world and you have them ask who some important figure is or where to go, you'd have to wonder, "why doesn't my character already know this?"

There are plenty of ways to provide exposition to the player that don't involve the PC having to ask other characters about it.  In this series, for example, it's long been a tradition that Ron Perlman explains the current state of the world before each game.  Like how before NV, he briefly tells us about the NCR, the Legion, and New Vegas.  That way, there's no need to put in dialogue options where the Courier asks people what's up with this "enseearr" business.  It would have been very easy for Perlman to just explain what's commonly known about all the factions for F4, if they had given him a narration in the first place.

And even if the PC is expected to talk to NPCs for exposition, subtle changes to the dialogue can influence whether or not we would believe that the PC is clueless about the subject.  There's a world of difference between "What do you know about the Institute?" or "Tell me what you know about the Institute," and "What's the Institute?"  The first two options don't necessarily demonstrate that the PC has no idea of what the Institute is - they might just be looking for more information on them.  The final option, however, is the only one that F4 uses, and both the wording and the way that the voice actor speaks in a confused tone of voice make it clear that they're completely ignorant.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on June 11, 2016, 01:10:30 AM
I've completed Far Harbor.  It's pretty decent overall.  I mentioned earlier that it has new creatures, new equipment, and a cool new setting, but those aren't the only ways that it improves on the base game.  The bullshit radiant quests are gone, replaced with a number of sidequests that were properly scripted out.  Even the story, despite my previous misgivings, isn't all that bad.  You have to deal with three factions that are at each other's throats, like the base game, but unlike the base game, you actually have options on how to resolve the situation peacefully, and aren't forced to take part in a genocide if you don't want to.  Is there more bad cribbing from Blade Runner, of course, but at least this time you aren't given a prescriptive role in the story, and thank God, there's no weepy family melodrama forcing itself front and center this time.  Seriously, I know I've complained about that last point a lot, but it deserves stressing.  Bethesda is the last dev in the world that should be trying to tell these personal, emotional stories about love and family.  You can't half-ass a story like that.  To do it well, you really need to go all in and focus on that element.  For a dev like Bethesda, which doesn't even bother hiring professional writers to do their writing, the idea of prioritizing good writing like that is a joke.

One thing that I will criticize, although it's a minor point, is how companions are handled.  You're expected to bring Nick along, because part of his backstory is revealed on the island, and so there's a lot of dialogue with him to that end and all that, but he's the only one.  None of the other companions - except for one guy whom you meet there, but he doesn't really add much to anything - have any situational dialogue or anything to contribute to what's going on.  I suppose it would be pretty difficult to make it so every companion has their own little subplot there, but picking and choosing one doesn't feel right to me.  I prefer what NV did in offering you new companions in its add-ons.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 13, 2016, 08:10:01 AM
Quote
You can't half-ass a story like that.  To do it well, you really need to go all in and focus on that element.  For a dev like Bethesda, which doesn't even bother hiring professional writers to do their writing, the idea of prioritizing good writing like that is a joke.

This. I wake up having just witnessed the apocalypse, my spouse murdered and my potatochild kidnapped, and apparently I'm supposed to care about some douchebags in power armour or the plight of some nobodies living in shacks?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 13, 2016, 09:53:40 AM
no, you don't have to.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on June 14, 2016, 11:45:54 PM
As far as your character's dialogue is concerned, you pretty much do have to.  You're either a good guy who's eager to help out, or a good guy who makes sarcastic comments, but is still willing to help out.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 15, 2016, 12:20:06 PM
You don't have to join any faction. You can deny all their invitations.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on June 15, 2016, 11:59:04 PM
As far as your character's dialogue is concerned, you pretty much do have to.  You're either a good guy who's eager to help out, or a good guy who makes sarcastic comments, but is still willing to help out.

So, this new fallout prevents you from being evil? How did they manage to make it really that much worse than Fallout 3?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on June 16, 2016, 03:34:29 AM
You don't have to join any faction. You can deny all their invitations.

You have to side with one to complete the game, and you have to work your way up the ranks doing shitty radiant quests (or quests that might as well be radiant) before they give you the option of completing the game.

So, this new fallout prevents you from being evil? How did they manage to make it really that much worse than Fallout 3?

A small handful of "evil" options are offered throughout the game, like the chance to sell the kid in a fridge (I winced typing that) to the Gunners, but it's very much the least the game could have done.  Speaking of the Gunners, another thing that bothers me about Bethesda's run on this franchise is their obvious lack of interest in fleshing out and providing context to enemy factions beyond the fact that they're trying to kill you.  Just like in F3, the majority of enemy NPCs are "raiders," who are apparently all allied with one another despite being scattered all over the map.  Another big group is the Gunners, who are, once again, scattered all over the map and still all allied with one another.  Who are these people?  Where did they come from?  Where did they get their equipment?  Do they have leaders?  Why do they all want you dead?  Occasionally you'll find a terminal entry establishing some motivation for a local group, which is nice, but it's very slim.  Bethesda seems to care more about giving you cannon fodder to blast through than making sure that these factions make sense and feel like a natural part of the world.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 16, 2016, 06:11:49 AM
You don't have to join any faction. You can deny all their invitations.

You have to side with one to complete the game, and you have to work your way up the ranks doing shitty radiant quests (or quests that might as well be radiant) before they give you the option of completing the game.
You need their help getting the equipment set up. But obviously they won't help you unless you also help them with something, which makes perfect sense. A favour for a favour. If you don't want to feel like you have to "join" them, just pretend you're using them to further your goal. After that, you don't have to give a shit about that faction anymore.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on June 16, 2016, 06:32:57 PM
You need their help getting the equipment set up...After that, you don't have to give a shit about that faction anymore.

It's a lot easier with their help, but you can build the teleportation device by yourself, an option that I appreciate Bethesda including.  What you do need a faction for, however, is the final step of destroying the enemy faction(s) and completing the game.

Quote
But obviously they won't help you unless you also help them with something, which makes perfect sense. A favour for a favour. If you don't want to feel like you have to "join" them, just pretend you're using them to further your goal.

But at the end of the game, the PC doesn't really have a goal of their own; they're just fulfilling their chosen faction's goal of destroying their enemies.  Bethesda was clearly assuming that by that time, the players would be invested enough in their factions to want to see their plans through to the end.  Which is fair enough, but the PC would have no idea of that when they first meet the factions, and so you're given very little leeway to imagine yourself joining them for any other reason than the fact that you're a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed eager-beaver hero, like Chris pointed out.

Also:

(http://i.imgur.com/JRy5AiR.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: George on August 19, 2016, 01:17:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIneiOpuS2M

This looks like it may just be the worst add-on of all.  None of what we're seeing here makes any sense, and I just know that there won't be any kind of plausible explanation when it's finally released, because Bethesda doesn't care about that kind of thing.  "not interested in discussing how realistic things are in an alternate universe post-apoc game w/ talking mutants and ghouls," and all that.  You'd think that Bethesda, given all their work with TES, would understand and appreciate how much effort goes into creating and maintaining a fictional universe, and therefore have a bit more respect for the world that another dev created, but they don't.  They see the Fallout franchise as a sandbox for them to jerk off over.  You can't even call what they're doing "experimenting," because there's no variation (with the exception of Far Harbor, as previously discussed).  They just keeping churning out the exact same thing over and over again - a big, dumb shoot-em-up disguised as an RPG with a heavy focus on crafting, set in a cuh-razy, wacky world (without any charm or humor) where everything keeps on repeating and nothing ever changes.  Speaking of repetition, it looks like Bethesda is rehashing the Hubologists from F2:

(http://i.imgur.com/cEvk6Iz.jpg)

Fuck F4, and fuck Bethesda.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on August 19, 2016, 01:54:37 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/dDAILrC.jpg)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 23, 2016, 09:17:38 AM
I think I've softened on F4 a bit. I mean, it still doesn't work as a WRPG, and the inventory system is far too complicated for my liking (especially the guns and outfits, the sheer number of which are bewildering unless you're prepared to spend hours combing over) but there are some genuinely brilliant gameplay moments here. For instance, just outside Diamond City there's a theatre which seems empty at first glance, until one of the mannequins on stage turns out to be a synth and tries to kill you. I also enjoyed a tense battle in an abandoned building filled to the rafters with Super Mutants. I got to the top and physically flopped back in relief at having made it.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on February 06, 2018, 09:39:44 PM
I will respond to Crudblud's mini-review here:

We start off with a couple of robots looking in a mirror, and you get to choose what the robots will look like. Every time you change something about one robot's face, both it and its fellow robot will comment on the change. After a few hundred "there's the handsome man I married"s and "I clean up pretty good"s I realised that, short of picking an entirely different preset to start with, there was very little I could do to make the man-robot not look like Jon Bernthal's derpy brother, and gave up.

You jest, but at one point during Far Harbor, a character actually tries to raise the question of whether or not you might be a synth yourself. Presumably this was because the folks at Bethesda had recently watched Blade Runner for the first time and wanted to impress upon the world just how deep and enlightened they were.

Quote
everyone except the protagonist is killed by Totally Not Hal 9000 during cryosleep. Yeah, the vaults have cryopods for no apparent reason, other than they really wanted to have the opening sequence be the day the bombs fell, and yet have you play the same guy in 2288 or whatever.

Vault 111 was outfitted with cryopods to study the effects of long-term suspended animation on unsuspecting human subjects. The other inhabitants were killed by the mercenary who abducted Shaun, only keeping you alive because of your genetic similarity to Shaun, which becomes important later.

Quote
But before that, before the robots shape-shifting and making the same three comments about it over and over in the bathroom, we of course have war. And you know what they say, war never changes. Oh my god. Three times this monotonous goon spouts the catchphrase in the first couple of minutes, and whoever directed the voice over clearly did not learn the Pinter pause lesson—if you tell the actor to pause, they will do it for too long. The space between "war" and "war never changes" must be something like five full seconds, the longest comma there ever was. And it's not like you don't know what he's about to say. There's nothing deep about it at this stage, if ever there was. It beggars belief. Not even Ron Perlman could have saved this pile.

He says it a fourth time if you open up your closet and look at your old uniform. Also:

<Saddam> War..........war never changes
<Crudblud> That fucking pause
<Crudblud> Why would you say that to yourself in the mirror anyway
<Crudblud> What a horribly written mess that is
<Saddam> Bethesda has no idea what it means
<Saddam> They can't even come up with a new meaning for it
<Crudblud> It's just a catchphrase people identify with the series
<Saddam> Like, I'm not saying there's one objective meaning to it that you have to fully understand or else you're wrong
<Saddam> But they don't even try to make it mean anything
<Crudblud> "Hey guys this is totally Fallout for reals haha war never changes haha war...war never changes! See? We're doing it! We're really doing it!"
<Saddam> It's an empty catchphrase
<Crudblud> It's worse because they have him say it so many fucking times
<Crudblud> I also love how they expected me to have any sort of attachment to people I'd spent all of five minutes with
<Crudblud> Like, even Taken Dad at least talked to you more than once
<Crudblud> They should have either made the intro sequence much longer or scrapped the frankly idiotic frozen for centuries storyline altogether
<Saddam> Heart-Wrenching Personal Story™
<Saddam> An ideal fit for a freeform RPG!
* SexWarrior (~John@cpc120900-sotn16-2-0-cust12.15-1.cable.virginm.net) has joined
* ChanServ gives channel operator status to SexWarrior
<Crudblud> It's amazing, they actually managed to do a worse job of their second attempt
<Crudblud> It's a shame, because the actual shooting things part of the game seemed pretty decent
<SexWarrior> Oh boy what's the disappointing game
<Crudblud> Fallout 4
<Crudblud> Well, "disappointing" would be the wrong word, my expectations were pretty low coming from F3
<Crudblud> But they improved the FPS aspect while making the RPG aspect even worse somehow

Quote
I touched a little on the way the game handles dialogue earlier, and it does definitely seem like what was annoying to look at in the pre-release gameplay footage is just as bad if not worse to actually play with. Each conversation point consists of you clicking on one of four preset options, none of which actually indicates what you're going to say. I thought the "yes" "no" "sarcastic" thing was a joke, but it really is that unclear. Like, it's nowhere near as wildly misleading as the "truth" "doubt" "lie" mechanic could be in L.A. Noire, but I don't feel like this "role-playing game" is actually allowing me to role-play in any real sense, because all the information I would need in order to be able to do it is hidden. During your side of the conversation, the camera inexplicably jumps out of first person perspective so that you can see the man-robot trying and failing to activate its expression module. It's a minor annoyance sitting like icing on top of a cake made of shit, but why on earth they decided to have the camera do that is beyond me.

They did it because it's what more story/character-driven RPG series, like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and The Witcher, have been doing lately. But Bethesda wasn't willing to give you a main character with a developed personality and lengthy dialogue options like those games do, so they bizarrely tried to mash it together with their usual style of a freeform RPG with a blank slate for a main character. An attempt at having it both ways ended up having it neither way. Incidentally, if you use the mod that shows you your "real" dialogue options, it becomes laughable just how blatantly dishonest the whole system is:

(https://i.imgur.com/76ptkc3.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/gxAPFgq.jpg)

If they wanted to switch gears and do something more about story or character, that would be fine, but this superficial, shallow disguise satisfies nobody. Yeah, a lot of people liked F4, but I'm sure that none of them were actually invested in the characters or found the inane story to be moving or compelling.

Quote
I definitely prefer the feel of combat in this game to Fallout 3, and obviously it is a better looking game, but this second attempt at a dramatic Heart-Wrenching Personal Story™ is even worse than the first. Maybe it gets better and more compelling the further you go, but I'm pretty confident that isn't the case.

It gets worse. It gets so, so much worse. You've really cheated yourself out of the full F4 experience by not following this idiotic story to its sappy conclusion.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 07, 2018, 02:55:11 AM
Thanks Saddam. The Blade Runner thing was already in Fallout 3. There's an android guy who don't know it in Rivet City and a Commonwealth science guy comes looking for him. It's a truly riveting tale.

Also, I posted up a sort of rewrite of my Fallout 4 review (https://cazoozerdon.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/on-the-lack-of-motivation-to-do-anything-in-fallout-4-game-journal-sort-of/) on my blog, but just talking about the writing, mostly.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on February 15, 2018, 05:35:03 AM
Thanks Saddam. The Blade Runner thing was already in Fallout 3. There's an android guy who don't know it in Rivet City and a Commonwealth science guy comes looking for him. It's a truly riveting tale.

I still don't understand why the "good" outcome of that quest was to remind the android who he really was, when he was the one who wanted his mind to be wiped in the first place.

Quote
Also, I posted up a sort of rewrite of my Fallout 4 review (https://cazoozerdon.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/on-the-lack-of-motivation-to-do-anything-in-fallout-4-game-journal-sort-of/) on my blog, but just talking about the writing, mostly.

Bethesda doesn't have a "writing staff." They don't hire professional writers to do their writing; they just have everybody write their own material as they go along. That's presumably how you get something like "Kid in a Fridge" alongside bizarre Lovecraftian fanfiction.

I don't quite agree with you about not spending enough time with the family, though. There are a number of games that rely on a brief scene establishing the relationship between the player character and a loved one to get the player invested in their fate, and they often work out just fine. For example, Splinter Cell: Conviction has a flashback to Sam Fisher comforting his young daughter that manages to be genuinely sweet without being overwrought, The Witcher 3 opens with a dream taking the form of a pseudo-flashback that shows us Ciri, a charming, likable character, and the kind of relationship she has with Geralt. And Red Dead Redemption doesn't give us any such scene at all, instead framing John Marston's relationship with his family entirely through his own words. Those games make what F4 so utterly failed at work not because they spent more time setting it up, but because their setups were competently scripted, written, and voiced. F4's beginning doesn't fail to resonate because it's short, or because we haven't seen enough of the lives of Nate, Nora, and Shaun. It fails because the characters are bland and one-dimensional, the dialogue is dull and uninspired, and the voice actors give bored, disinterested performances. Seeing more of their lives wouldn't change this. Ten times zero gives the same answer as one times zero.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on February 15, 2018, 03:09:04 PM
I still don't understand why the "good" outcome of that quest was to remind the android who he really was, when he was the one who wanted his mind to be wiped in the first place.
Because war...










...war never changes.

Or at least I'm assuming that would be the rationale of whoever wrote that quest. Alternatively, "don't ask me for good writing in a game with super mutants!"

Quote
Bethesda doesn't have a "writing staff." They don't hire professional writers to do their writing; they just have everybody write their own material as they go along. That's presumably how you get something like "Kid in a Fridge" alongside bizarre Lovecraftian fanfiction

I don't quite agree with you about not spending enough time with the family, though. There are a number of games that rely on a brief scene establishing the relationship between the player character and a loved one to get the player invested in their fate, and they often work out just fine. For example, Splinter Cell: Conviction has a flashback to Sam Fisher comforting his young daughter that manages to be genuinely sweet without being overwrought, The Witcher 3 opens with a dream taking the form of a pseudo-flashback that shows us Ciri, a charming, likable character, and the kind of relationship she has with Geralt. And Red Dead Redemption doesn't give us any such scene at all, instead framing John Marston's relationship with his family entirely through his own words. Those games make what F4 so utterly failed at work not because they spent more time setting it up, but because their setups were competently scripted, written, and voiced. F4's beginning doesn't fail to resonate because it's short, or because we haven't seen enough of the lives of Nate, Nora, and Shaun. It fails because the characters are bland and one-dimensional, the dialogue is dull and uninspired, and the voice actors give bored, disinterested performances. Seeing more of their lives wouldn't change this. Ten times zero gives the same answer as one times zero.

I'm working with the assumption, perhaps ill-advisedly, that if they had had to come up with a more thorough presentation of the domestic icebox then it might have thawed a little. In any case, as you know, I think the prescriptive approach to character that Bethesda takes in these games is wrongheaded, but I do think it could have been tolerable if the family had been more fleshed out. I haven't played the games you cite, and I'm sure they are better at handling personal character moments than Fallout 4, although in at least two of those cases it seems you're talking about established characters who have been in several games and developed during that time. I know the Witcher series also has a whole bunch of source novels to draw upon, which helps. Anyway, my preferred option is still the "emerge from cryosleep with family intact" set-up, but I wouldn't trust Bethesda with that either, if their marriage and adoption "mechanics" from Skyrim are anything to go by. Basically what I'm saying is I would much prefer it if they handed development over to other studios and just acted as publisher instead.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Cain on February 16, 2018, 04:56:46 PM
Seriously, who plays Fallout for the story? I just want to finally be able to live out my bigoted hatred against all those filthy ghouls. Also, Fallout 4 has the best writing of the Bethesda Fallout games.
"Another settlement needs your help."
"Another settlement needs your help."
"Another settlement needs your help."
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 17, 2018, 11:09:05 PM
I read books for the gameplay.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on May 30, 2018, 05:11:13 PM
4/18: Take it up with Pete Hines and Bethesda, as they're the ones who apparently think that people want a Heart-Wrenching Personal Story™ about love and family when they play a Fallout game.

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ye84Zrqndo

Not going to be playing this, whatever it is. Fuck Bethesda.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on May 30, 2018, 09:21:50 PM
What happened to the other 71 games between Fallout 4 and Fallout 76?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rama Set on May 30, 2018, 10:19:22 PM
What happened to the other 71 games between Fallout 4 and Fallout 76?

They were exclusive to Windows 9
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on May 30, 2018, 11:29:04 PM
https://kotaku.com/sources-fallout-76-is-an-online-survival-rpg-1826425333

Fucking lol. Because Metal Gear Survive did so great, right? I can see why they'd want to jump on this bandwagon.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Cain on May 31, 2018, 12:38:41 AM
I just want to kill n00bs with a fat man

as such, I approve

Edit: Fuck, it's a survival game. Nevermind
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 31, 2018, 01:52:01 AM
This might be my new favorite game without ever playing it. Not only is the idea cool and the game have a ton of potential, but it's going to trigger all the Fallout purists out there. Best game ever.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on May 31, 2018, 03:12:22 AM
It's going to trigger those with good taste in games. :)
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on May 31, 2018, 04:07:43 AM
It's going to trigger those with good taste in games. :)
lol you haven't even seen the game yet
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on May 31, 2018, 05:22:51 AM
I'm gonna play the shit out of this game just to annoy Saddam.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on May 31, 2018, 09:57:38 AM
Guys, guys, this Fallout news (https://twitter.com/bombsfall/status/1001869295540981760) is far more important.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2018, 03:30:54 PM
Doesn't anyone think it's funny that the only person here who played Fallout 4 and all of its DLCs is the person who claim to be such a Fallout purist? Really nogs the ol joggin hmmmm
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Snupes on May 31, 2018, 04:58:06 PM
It's going to trigger those with good taste in games. :)
lol you haven't even seen the game yet

It's Bethesda. Just like it's a pretty safe assumption whatever original content Zack Snyder puts out is going to be shit, it's safe to assume any new game Bethesda puts out is going to be shit.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2018, 10:33:25 PM
It's going to trigger those with good taste in games. :)
lol you haven't even seen the game yet

It's Bethesda. Just like it's a pretty safe assumption whatever original content Zack Snyder puts out is going to be shit, it's safe to assume any new game Bethesda puts out is going to be shit.

So what you're saying is that Bethesda needs to hire Zack Snyder to do all of the dialogue and character development, right?
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on June 01, 2018, 03:25:52 AM
Doesn't anyone think it's funny that the only person here who played Fallout 4 and all of its DLCs is the person who claim to be such a Fallout purist? Really nogs the ol joggin hmmmm

The only DLC I played was Far Harbor, as all the others looked like glorified mods. I felt it was all right, but my standards might have been dramatically lowered after experiencing the base game.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on June 01, 2018, 05:10:06 AM
Yeah I'm the one who played all the DLCs. I think I need to get back into it just to annoy Saddam.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: ElTrancy on June 01, 2018, 12:50:27 PM
Fallout 76....on the rise...
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 11, 2018, 10:27:20 AM
EuroGamer just posted an article (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-11-11-the-fallout-game-that-time-forgot) based on an interview with Chris Pasetto, the director of the ill-fated console exclusive spin-off Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on November 11, 2018, 01:54:20 PM
Quote
Moreover, instead of the twee 50s music of the original games, modern alt-rock such as Slipknot and Killswitch Engage peppers the game.

Damn. Even Bethesda's dumb insistence on at least half their soundtrack being "fitting" songs about bombs and destruction is preferable to that.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: honk on November 21, 2018, 09:22:33 PM
beardo vs. Fortuna

"Turn over your weapons!" barked the guard at the entrance to the arena, clutching his plasma rifle tightly.

beardo snorted derisively, but complied. His weapons included his rifle slung over his back for long-range bushwhacking, his trusty revolver by his side for close-quarters combat, his sheath knife for the occasional bout of hacking and slashing, and a few sticks of dynamite in an explosives bag for the rare situation that called for more heavy-duty firepower. His gear was primitive in this world of power armor and energy weapons, but he was proud to still fight the way his forefathers did hundreds of years ago.

"Ladies and gentlemen!" This was the announcer as beardo made his way into the arena. "I present to you our challenger, the legendary desperado, the courageous cowboy...beardo! But consider beardo, and consider him well. What can a gunslinger hope to sling when he no longer has his gun?"

The gathered crowd, roughly twenty or so onlookers, tittered at this.

"I'll sling you to the ground if you don't shut up and start this fight," growled beardo. "Show me your champion."

The announcer seemed surprised. "Very well, then. I give you our champion, the roughest around, the toughest around...Fortuna!"

A young man sprang into the arena from the other side and gave what beardo could only suppose was his battle cry. Everything about this man was scrawny except for his biceps, which bulged in a grotesque, disconcerting way. With a slightly higher medicine level, beardo could have recognized that this supposed muscular development was actually impossible, even with the aid of technology or drugs. Nobody could have such powerful biceps while the rest of their body remained so scrawny. As it was, he only thought, not incorrectly, that Fortuna looked an enormous fool.

The announcer hastily leaped back from the arena. "Fight!"

With a roar, Fortuna charged at beardo, who simply jumped aside and watched as the man with fat arms fell on his face. Fortuna angrily climbed to his feet, but now beardo was on the offensive, and delivered a swift jab to his face. Fortuna swung wildly in response, but beardo ducked under the blow and riposted with another punch to the stomach. This was followed by a boot to the back sending Fortuna to the ground once again.

Fortuna kept on swinging, but his meaty arms couldn't find their target. beardo was no martial artist, and had no experience with sophisticated fighting styles beyond one encounter with a old drunken kung fu master who had stolen his beer money in San Francisco, but he was proficient in good old fisticuffs. It was no challenge to him to avoid Fortuna's clumsy attacks and wear him down with quick jabs.

"Just body slam him, Fortuna!" shouted the announcer, clearly frustrated. "You've got the mass!"

Dodging Fortuna's entire body at such short range was harder than dodging one arm, and this time he made contact with beardo, knocking him off his feet as he plowed into him. beardo lay on the ground, briefly stunned, with Fortuna straddling him.

"How the turntables!" bellowed Fortuna as he began to furiously pound at beardo.

beardo raised his arms to block the barrage of heavy punches. As the fat arms loomed menacingly over his head, beardo (keenly perceptive, like all gunslingers) picked up on something unusual. Fortuna's arms didn't seem entirely solid the way muscle was. Instead, something was shifting under the skin, like his arms were two great balloons.

On an impulse, beardo seized one of the arms and bit into it. He regretted it immediately, as the skin tore open and a dark, goopy oil-like substance began pouring out. Spitting frantically to make sure he hadn't been poisoned, he then grabbed the arm and bashed into the ground to make the hole wider. The substance was flowing out rapidly now.

Fortuna writhed on the ground, howling in pain. beardo strode over to his other arm and brought his boot down upon it as hard as he could. The arm ruptured open like the other and the dark oil poured out once more.

The audience murmured in confusion and disgust. The sight and smell was revolting, and as the flow receded, it soon became clear that Fortuna was scrawny all over and had apparently injected that substance into his arms to make himself look muscular. It hadn't quite worked. If beardo had been more knowledgeable in science, he might have recognized it as synthol, an oil used by some Pre-War athletes to similarly fake muscle definition. But he didn't need to know what it was to know that Fortuna was a fraud, and also in no condition to fight any longer.

beardo approached the announcer. "So much for your champion. I want the prize money now."

The announcer scowled at him. "That's a bold demand for what you just pulled. A dirty trick if I ever saw one."

"And injecting his arms with that shit wasn't a dirty trick? None of this would have happened if your so-called champion could actually fight worth a damn. Now give me the money."

"I don't think you're in any position to be giving orders, my cowboy friend," said the announcer smoothly, as the two guards slowly moved forward. "Not when you've already surrendered your weapons, putting you at something of a disadvantage to my men..."

Part of beardo wanted to attack. He could floor this man with a punch, then try to reach the guards. One of them would have have his weapons, and their bulky plasma rifles would be slow, both in their aiming and firing, to respond. But that way presented enormous risks, not just to him, but to the audience as well. It would be better to handle this nonviolently.

"Listen to me. You set this whole thing up as a competition for a reason. Beat your champion, get the money. If you just wanted to rob people, you wouldn't have bothered with an audience, a champion, or any of this. You wanted to offer people a chance to win. A unfair chance in an unfair competition, but still a chance. I won, and if you have any honor left, you'll respect that."

The announcer made a face. "Honor?"

"Yeah, honor. Every man has a code, even you."

With these wise words, the speech check was passed, and beardo earned 60 experience. The announcer reluctantly handed beardo a bag full of cash, and the guards relinquished his weapons to him. beardo donned his cowboy hat and strolled out of the arena, the crowd still enthusiastically cheering behind him.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 22, 2018, 05:35:52 AM
100 Speech wins again.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Cain on November 26, 2018, 11:37:09 AM
beardo should've just capped the fucker
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 26, 2018, 02:10:18 PM
No. You take down bosses with words, not bullets.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Cain on November 26, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
No. You take down bosses with words, not bullets.
Then why do bullets exist????
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: beardo on November 26, 2018, 07:03:02 PM
No. You take down bosses with words, not bullets.
Then why do bullets exist????

To kill non-bosses with.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Cain on November 26, 2018, 08:01:22 PM
No. You take down bosses with words, not bullets.
Then why do bullets exist????

To kill non-bosses with.
But what makes a non-boss different than a boss?
For example, in Dark Souls the archers in Anor Londo are much more difficult than the boss at the end of the Catacombs, Pinwheel.
Title: Re: Fallout series
Post by: Crudblud on November 26, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
No. You take down bosses with words, not bullets.
Then why do bullets exist????

To kill non-bosses with.
But what makes a non-boss different than a boss?
For example, in Dark Souls the archers in Anor Londo are much more difficult than the boss at the end of the Catacombs, Pinwheel.
What does Dark Souls have to do with Fallout?