Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[elander_]

So, leaving dungeons aside, we see 47 locations, out of them as far as i remember 34 are available from the start.

Only Candlekeep is available from the start. It's your tutorial city. After that you get Friendly Arm Inn and Beregost i think. You certainly don't get 34 locations available from the start because you can't travel in the map like in Fallout and those locations won't appear unless they are marked for you when giving quest. So doing quests and side-quests dictates what places you get to visit.

This is the fundamental difference between sandboxes and classic crpgs with a world map. This doesn't meens we don't get a mix of playing modes sometimes. Fallout 3 is filled with places you discover by going randomly into some direction. There are some places that you can only explore when you are given a certain quest (like the tower where Burk lives) and this is clearly quest driven exploration. But the bulk of it is sandbox exploration.

 

[Hamster]

you can't travel in the map like in Fallout and those locations won't appear unless they are marked for you when giving quest. So doing quests and side-quests dictates what places you get to visit.

In BG1 locations are conjoined, approaching left side of the location will open location that is to the left on a world map, no marking by NPC needed in most cases.
Well, i never explored the possibility of going anywhere but Friendly Arm's Inn in the beginning because 2 joinable and very usefull characters are there, but after that you can go exploring, Khalid and Jaheira will even start to complain if you will just wander around instead of going to Nashkel. Of course, you can tell them to fuck off.

 

[elander_]

In BG1 locations are conjoined, approaching left side of the location will open location that is to left on world map, no marking by NPC needed in most cases.

OK but most locations are only revealed when you get a quest.

 

[Hamster]

In BG1 locations are conjoined, approaching left side of the location will open location that is to left on world map, no marking by NPC needed in most cases.

OK but most locations are only revealed when you get a quest.

Most? I don't remember if Gnoll Stronghold, Nashkell Mines, Larswood, Peldvale and that place with Ankhegs are revealed through quests, but even without them it will be 29 out of 47 locations, 60%.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

In BG1 locations are conjoined, approaching left side of the location will open location that is to left on world map, no marking by NPC needed in most cases.

OK but most locations are only revealed when you get a quest.

Not true at all. There are very few locations like this. It isn't BG2.

-Candlekeep, which is kind of like the game's Vault 101 in that you start there, and you go there again for a short period of time, but other than that, you can''t go there.

-The Bandit Camp, which you have to use one of four ways to locate.

-The 4 Cloakwood areas and the mines, which unlocks after the Bandit camp.

-The 6 Baldur's Gate areas that unlock after the Cloakwood.

That's 13 map areas that are restricted. The rest you can go to right after Sarevok whacks Gorion. That means more than 65% of the gameworld is open immediately after the tutorial. Heck, when compared to actual sandbox games, like GTA, Mercenaries, and such, it's very open. I mean, in GTA: San Andreas, you're stuck in Los Santos until you complete a certain amount of story missions, and that's less than a third of the gameworld. And in Mercenaries, you're stuck in the southern province of North Korea until you complete a certain amount of story missions and then the Northern Province opens up, giving you the other half of the gameworld. Baldur's Gate looks pretty good in this regard.

Just letting my knowledge of my favorite mediocre to bad game help out here.

 

[Ausir]

Yeah, where the hell are the endings in Fallout 3? The only things I can see that affects the endings are your karma, if you poison the water, and who goes in the chamber. So, basically, eight possible endings? Where's the over 200?

They counted stuff like different slides showing up with the same 8 variants of narration as "different endings" - e.g. you being male or female, you being black or white etc. But yeah, only 8 versions of Perlman's narration.

 

[elander_]

That means more than 65% of the gameworld is open immediately after the tutorial. Heck, when compared to actual sandbox games, like GTA, Mercenaries, and such, it's very open.

That's not how my map looked when i played BG. I got straight for the main quest and ignored talking to every npc. It's a good chance to replay BG in solo mode and check this out.

Anyway, saying a game is a sandbox game is different than saying the game is non-linear or open, right? Otherwise it would be just a synonim for open game.

There are some notable differences in the way side-quests were made in BG and your typical Sandbox quest. I recall BG side-quests being very cohesive having something to do with the main story or the events taking place. The difference between Fallout and BG is that Fallout makes your other skills besides combat sufficient to play the game to the end, while BG is heavily dependent on combat.

PS: In this regard when comparing Fallout 1 to Fallout 2, the second game is much more a Sandbox than the first. In Fallout 1 all different places are somewhat connected to the events taking place. Fallout 2 has many filler locations that are there just for the player to do something and waste some time but otherwise are not related to the game main events. F2 is more of a Sandbox game than F1.

 

[Hamster]

I got straight for the main quest and ignored talking to every npc.

I recall BG side-quests being very cohesive having something to do with the main story

What a coincidence!

 

[elander_]

What a coincidence!

I played a few side-quests and read about other people talking about the game.

 

[Twinfalls]

much of the criticism of the review from VD, TF and NN is over minor issues - schematics, vampire people, too harshly worded (stylistic decision more than anything)... In fact TF and NN seem to have engaged in... nitpicking at the edges, ignoring the heart of the point they were addressing. Some of DU's points have been pedantic, but his comments on the "vampire people" nitpickery ignoring Ed's point entirely was absolutely spot on.

Regarding the vampire people, Murrow asked for his errors to be pointed out. That was one of them. Not a major one, to be sure. However,

'Most skill checks are "gimme more money" speech checks, there were scant few other checks.'

- is a gigantic howler. This cuts to the heart of the matter, it is very strong evidence that at the time he wrote the review, Murrow had given the game a cursory play, and based his words mainly on prior expectations (as his earlier posts on the Codex and ITS strongly suggest).

One would not normally expect a flock of screeching automatons to descend simply because this criticism is made of a review. But of course, I have forgotten that I am now posting on BethesdaBashingIsSacredCodex. How remiss of me.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

One would not normally expect a flock of screeching automatons to descend simply because this criticism is made of a review. But of course, I have forgotten that I am now posting on BethesdaBashingIsSacredCodex. How remiss of me.

If you had actually criticised it and given some sort of explanation as to why he was wrong, you might have a point. You didn't though. Both you and VD just posted "Incorrect" without any explanation - or as you did - an entire post of "You are wrong" again and again without any backing explanation (with a further follow-up of "No, you are wrong", the height of an ESFers abilities). We've had to drag the reasons out of you while you've been kicking and screaming. God forbid you actually justify your position.

Taking apart a review with facts and information is one thing. Taking apart a review, while complaining that FO3 shouldn't be compared to previous Fallout's or even other RPGs, that Bethesda were honest all the while doing complete 180's on those positions, isn't. When Edward raised those points, at least he did so with some justification. The review also made it quite clear (unless you're completely dense) as to the view Edward was looking at FO3 from (IE: An RPG in the Fallout calibre). A view that's perfectly acceptable to take.

Fact is, you complained that Edward's review was full of errors and littered with mistakes, only to be able to make those claims, you've had to ignore the actual points that Edward was making in his review (and being able to find only a handful of questionable items anyway in an otherwise solid review). Making it look like you're doing nothing other than what you rage against Edward for doing: Looking for things to complain about in an otherwise decent item.

Double standards much?

 

[Wyrmlord]

Don't bother with that poster, DU. Twinfalls is just here with a chip on the shoulder, merely to take an antagonistic position and express displeasure with the forum in general. It's a recurring trend.

Debating anything with malcontents is a practice in futility.

 

[Shagnak]

However,
'Most skill checks are "gimme more money" speech checks, there were scant few other checks.'

- is a gigantic howler.

Well, it is an exagerration, but I was just noting to myself this evening that there seems to be an inordinately high number of those types of checks regardless. Just my impression. (I've finished the game, but am mopping up quests I missed, and the odd schematic - Pokemon - gotta catch 'em all! :wink

One would not normally expect a flock of screeching automatons to descend simply because this criticism is made of a review.

Err...what? Screeching?
DU can get very shouty*, but you really need to step back and read some of your own posts.

(*I expect that I'll check back here sometime in the future and see each character of "FLIP FLOP" taking up an entire page)

 

[Twinfalls]

Fact is, you complained that Edward's review was full of errors and littered with mistakes, only to be able to make those claims, you've had to ignore the actual points that Edward was making in his review

Selective reading much?

Look, in hindsight I was too glib with your piece. The first section especially is really good, you described nicely what you liked about Fallout and set up your expectations well. You make plenty of good criticisms from there, however I'm afraid it descends into a clunky diatribe

If you had actually criticised it and given some sort of explanation ... Both you and VD just posted "Incorrect" without any explanation - or as you did - an entire post of "You are wrong" again and again without any backing explanation...Taking apart a review with facts and information is one thing...

Murrow asked me to point out his errors, after stubbornly maintaining that he did no wrong ("maybe partially wrong" about the schematics? After dismissing them as 'radically useless'?). The onus is on him to justify his statements, given he wrote the damn review in the first place.

In case you've forgotten, I wasn't the one to post the 'review' up as official content. I believe that was... oh that's right it was you! Since you've established yourself as Mr Forensic, how about you provide the 'backing explanation' and 'facts and information' for why the statement 'there were scant few other [skill] checks' is accurate.

Take your time now! :wink:

Err...what? Screeching?
DU can get very shouty*, but you really need to step back and read some of your own posts.

Now now, I thought the lesson from this thread was to not get hung up on the choice of a single word...

 

[Ausir]

My point still stands about them wiping out all the other species.

Not any more than in the West Coast.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

No Adults Allowed city,

Which is a fairly common post apocalyptic theme. My big problem with that location was the dialog with the kids swearing, especially the mayor.

whole Megaton with it's Moira Brown,

Megaton has a poor design behind it, but the gameworld there is consistent with Fallout. Yes, the quests suck and the town is generally boring, but it's basically Junktown with a bomb in it.

exploding cars,

I don't care much for the exploding cars, but it's a lot better than working cars a la Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

portable nuke luncher,

Which is kind of silly, sure. Then again, Fallout 2's designers decided to toss in gobs and gobs of real world weapons which didn't fit Fallout's 1950s retro-future design at all.

fire-breathing ants,

I see your fire-breating ants and raise you a fire-breathing gecko.

skills-increasing armors and clothes,

Agreed on this. There's no reason why a vault suit should make you a better melee fighter. Also, I don't like the fact they seem to have neutered the armor from Fallout and Fallout 2 by removing a lot of the stats including armor class. I mentioned this in another thread, but in Fallout, you actually have to decide which is better - leather or metal? Leather makes you harder to hit, but you get hit harder due to low resistances. Metal makes you easier to hit, but it absorbs more damage.

GOAT...

GOAT was actually pretty well done and fit with the 1950s classroom theme.

it's probably matter of personal taste, but I do believe that talking deathclaws living in a Vault or Gangsters Town ain't that bad in comparison.

True, but I don't think it's worth to suffer from rest of the game only for them. At least not till mods can fix combat mechanics or basically rest of the game.

I've never tried guns in Fallout 3, but melee and unarmed seem to work pretty well within the combat system. The only problem I have is I can't target body locations with melee and unarmed. Oh, that and punching with fists is slower than punching with brass knuckles.

 

[DefJam101]

exploding cars,

I don't care much for the exploding cars, but it's a lot better than working cars a la Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

Nuclear... exploding... cars?

 

[DarkSign]

Hmmmm. Stationary cars that dont work (which fits after a nuclear holocaust) with a nuclear propulsion device (which fits the retro theme) vs. working cars (which doesnt make sense) with regular propulsion (which is realistic).

In broad terms, basically FO3's fits the theme and makes sense whereas FO2's doesnt make sense.

I see wut you're saying thur.

 

[Vault Dweller]

GTA is a 100% sandbox game. GTA does NOT have rail roading.

Right. "You can't go here until you will complete this absolutely linear quest line" is not railroading - it's a 100% sandbox.
Even Fallout is much more sandboxy in this regard.

Role-playing a dumbfuck, skyway? Yes, GTA, much like any other sandbox game, like Daggerfall, for example, has linear quests, but you are never forced to do this particular quest line. If you don't like them, there is plenty of other quest lines and random shit you can do. Duh!

Do you even understand what railroading means? It's a term for "you can only do this and nothing else". How can it be applied to GTA?

No railroading means that you must do this and nothing else to reach this next thing in a game. And it applies to GTA just fine.

Think, skyway, think. Most quest lines are linear. One unlocks another. Nobody - I hope - would argue that Daggerfall and Morrowind aren't sandbox games. Take a look at the main quest:

Daggerfall:

Morrowind:

So, no, railroading doesn't apply to GTA "just fine" due to an insanely huge number of alternative things you can do.

As for that Arcanum "quote", where did I claim that? Can I have a link to that post? If not, please avoid making shit up and claiming that I said it in the future.

"Once you are done with the handful of quests per town, you are done. Move on or stay and stare at the screen all day. Can you explore around each town, looking for and finding new things? Can you constantly find new things? Can you play for a few hours doing "nothing important" like you can in GTA, Fallout 3, Morrowind, Gothic?"
Which is a part of discussion "why Arcanum is not sandboxy" yet the same is applied to GTA just fine. And especially to TES games incl. F3.

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=639402#639402

First, I was talking about Fallout 1,2, not Arcanum. Replying to you about Arcanum I said only "Non-linear and sandbox are two different concepts". Needless to say I stand by it. No 180 degree turns, skyway.

As for what I said about Fallouts, the word "railroading" was never mentioned, as you can hopefully see. Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. I'm always willing to discuss and debate something, but I don't have time to dispute your false claims.

 

[Vault Dweller]

According to Edward, combat isn't that difficult. Several people have said you just have to run backwards when you run out of AP.

Running backwards always helps when multiple enemies are unloading their assault and laser rifles in your direction with deadly accuracy.

... said the man who found combat hard and "death easy".

Wowsie!

Are you so eager to find inconsistencies in my posts that you overlook the obvious sarcasm that was making fun of your attempts to agree with the most idiotic claims as long as they fit your position?

Well played, old boy.

Both you and VD just posted "Incorrect" without any explanation...

That's a lie.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure, DU.

 

[Vault Dweller]

GTA 4 gives you 1/3 of the world, Gothic 2 2/3. IN BG1 as far as i remember only that forest with spiders and main city are closed, so why it's "not to the same degree"?

Because overall all BG1 locations represent less than 10% of any sandbox game world. Most BG maps were generic "wilderness" with some combat and a few NPCs. Such maps could be cleared in less than 10 min. 20 such maps look impressive on gameworld map, but take no more than a few hours to deal with them all. They are not "gameworld", they are content filler.

If exploring is the most fun and extensive form of gameplay present, then why not? Maybe it's not a pure sandbox game but it surely has massive explroring element.

Hamster, do you understand what I said about all games having all or most elements, but only the dominant one determining the sub-genre? Sure, you can explore many 10 min maps. Let's say you don't want to do the main quest. How many hours of gameplay you'll get? 5? 10 at most? Does "5-10 hours" sound to you like a sandbox game?

BG1 is about the story. Period.

If you want to continue this debate, let's do it on the ITS forums. I'm done with this thread.

 

[trais]

No Adults Allowed city,

Which is a fairly common post apocalyptic theme. My big problem with that location was the dialog with the kids swearing, especially the mayor.

I'm confused. Are you really saying that city run by kids is less stupid than city run by mobsters?

whole Megaton with it's Moira Brown,

Megaton has a poor design behind it, but the gameworld there is consistent with Fallout. Yes, the quests suck and the town is generally boring, but it's basically Junktown with a bomb in it.

Ridiculing the fact that Megaton was build in crater of unexploded bomb got old 6 months ago, so I'll focus on Moira. Will it be enough if I point out that you can get extra perk from her, which will grant you ability to regenerate your crippled limbs if you're radiated?
BTW, I never finished Survival Guidebook quest, so I'm wondering how does she plan to print that book?

exploding cars,

I don't care much for the exploding cars, but it's a lot better than working cars a la Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

I see. So, you have problem with 1 working car, but working computers even in damaged buildings (I'm pretty sure there is working terminal in Dunwich Building, but half of the floors there are missing!) are ok?
There are also hundreds of Protectron robots strolling through the wasteland, so why working cars are so big no-no?

portable nuke luncher,

Which is kind of silly, sure. Then again, Fallout 2's designers decided to toss in gobs and gobs of real world weapons which didn't fit Fallout's 1950s retro-future design at all.

OK. But then, I'd rather have something that doesn't fit retro-future design, than something that doesn't fit into believable and consistent game world.

fire-breathing ants,

I see your fire-breating ants and raise you a fire-breathing gecko.

Heh, I forgot about fire geckos. True, both are stupid.
May I say instead, that booby traps made of cherry bomb, lunch-box and handful of bottle caps are way more deadly than professional landmine or grenade? Or mention that telephone booth looking nuclear shelters?

GOAT...

GOAT was actually pretty well done and fit with the 1950s classroom theme.

Yeah, but it was basically bunch of random questions. For example
"QUESTION 3 - You discover a young boy lost in the lower levels of the vault. He's hungry and frightened, but he also appears to be in possession of stolen property. What do you do?"
How does that question help to decide whether I would be better pip-boy programmer or hairdresser is beyond me.

I've never tried guns in Fallout 3

Lucky you...

 

[Kingston]

I'm done with this thread.

Excuse me, wtf are you doing? We aren't on page 20 yet.

 

[DefJam101]

Hmmmm. Stationary cars that dont work (which fits after a nuclear holocaust) with a nuclear propulsion device (which fits the retro theme) vs. working cars (which doesnt make sense) with regular propulsion (which is realistic).

Why does fixing cars to make them work make less sense than people designing cars that explode in sub-nuclear (lolwut) mushroom clouds when shot?

Unless you could find working cars laying around in Fallout 2, which I do not remember. All I remember is one guy fixing up a broken car that you could then use, what exactly does not make sense about this? Other than the obvious lack of a gasoline supply, of course.

 

[trais]

Other than the obvious lack of a gasoline supply, of course.

F2 car was powered by Micro Fusion Cells. I think Small Energy Cells worked too, but I'm not sure.

To clarify, I have no problem with car being nuclear powered, but I do have a problem with car exploding and emitting radiation after being hit by few bullets.