Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[Andyman Messiah]

Sulfuric acid is scary.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Without reading both your reviews and all the discussion: VD are you saying Fallout 3 is better than Morrowind when judged against the same standards? I just find that really, really hard to believe.

In my opinion, it's much better in the quest design and character system department, and slightly better or at least as good overall. It's a good discussion topic, so why won't you start one?

Seems like it would be hard to compare them. Morrowind lives and dies on writing...

I doubt that writing can be considered a strength of any ESF game. Some quests in Daggerfall and Morrowind were very well written, but overall, the writing isn't a feature worth mentioning.

Exactly. I don't give a flying fuck if it's better than Oblivion (wow, what an achievement).

It's also better or as good as Morrowind, and that's something.

I care if a game that pretends to be a Fallout sequel is indeed a Fallout sequel.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here agrees that it's an awful Fallout game. What more do you need?

 

[Shannow]

What vitriol? Saying that he rushed the review and didn't check some easily available facts? The mind boggles.

So much part of you that you don't notice it anymore? Just because your talent at expressing yourself means that you can call people idiotic morons without actually writing the words, doesn't mean that we don't know exactly what you mean. That is the curse of your talent. You just write too well

Anyway: Since DU and Edward are much better at proving VD wrong...

Where?

You have been proven "wrong" with most of you assertions apart from the int/40 SP one, Mr. East West Coast Encumbrance Man
I advise re-reading this whole thread.

[Edit] Ah, damn. Lost the answer to RWR vs combat shotgun. In even shorter:

3 shots @ 30 dmg vs 2 shots @ 55 dmg. 90 dmg vs 110 dmg. Armor provides absoption making few high dmg shots even more powerful than several low dmg ones.
VATS sucked at range. Were chances at long range in VATS better with the RWR than the other long range weapons?

You can get the first schematic in the Underworld, which is way, way before you get your hands on enough laser and plasma rifles to keep one in decent condition.

Nope. Sandbox game. Reached Underworld quite late and already had a steady supply of enclave push overs for all the spare parts I needed.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This is the RPGCodex, we have a high standard when it comes to RPGs. We'll compare games that call themselves RPGs to the best RPGs there are.

That's a great line, but it's a lie. I think I know the content page a bit better than you do, DU.

Positive reviews like Escape Velocity Nova, Divine Divinity, Knights of the Old Republic, and Silent Storm... Were the trashed because they weren't as good as the venerable classics? No, because these games belong to very different sub-genres. Saint said that he liked KOTOR. Doesn't mean that it's as good as Fallout? Of course not.

Was Morrowind as good as "the best RPGs there are"? I don't think so. Yet in 2002 3 out of 4 Codex admin called it a "must-play" RPG.

Nice try though.

What Edward R Murrow appears to be saying to me is that the Railway Rifle is very much like the Rocket Launcher.

Only it's not. But do continue...

That is, it looks good but there are weapons out there that will achieve much the same effect for a lot less effort.

You may want to take a look at the video I posted above. In other words, I disagree. Going back to what Eddie actually said:

"...the radically useless schematic weaponry.... schematic weaponry is pretty useless. ... by the time you can make them, they're mostly obsolete being underpowered...."

This simply isn't the case. While there are a few weapons that provide better DPS, the railway rifle is far from being useless, and like I said, is probably one of the top 5 guns in the game.

This is the Codex. We have higher standards when it comes to our expectations of games that call themselves RPG's.

Still pushing the party line?

For example, we have this really wonderful Oblivion review you might want to brush up with:

However, with Morrowind I think we saw that our kind of game appeals to a wider audience, given the game's success among more casual gamers who are neither "hardcore" nor "RPG geeks".

That quote is probably the best and most honest description of Oblivion I've ever seen. It's a game for casual players. Hardcore fans of the series or RPG geeks need not apply. You shall not find depth or challenge in Oblivion.

Beating that low standard doesn't sound like it'd be all that hard.

Did I say that it's better than Oblivion and that's it? I said it's the best Bethesda game since Daggerfall and that includes the above mentioned "must play Codex-recommended RPG" Morrowind.

Never liked double standards.

LOLOLOL. FLIP-FLOP.

What double standards are you referring to, good sir?

You have been proven "wrong" with most of you assertions apart from the int/40 SP one...

More specifically? I'd really appreciate your help in finding these proofs. Shouldn't be too difficult since they are so obvious to you.

...Mr. East West Coast Encumbrance Man...

Very embarrassing, I agree. However, these are minor "mindless" mistakes that don't really change anything.

[Edit] Ah, damn. Lost the answer to RWR vs combat shotgun. In even shorter:

3 shots @ 30 dmg vs 2 shots @ 55 dmg. 90 dmg vs 110 dmg. Armor provides absoption making few high dmg shots even more powerful than several low dmg ones.

Come on, guys. Surely you realize that there is more to guns - even in FO3 - than overall damage?

http://gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equipment/smallguns.php

Chinese Assault Rifle:
Damage: 51
Action Points: 23
Rate of Fire: 8
Spread: 1.5
Crit % Multiplier: 1
Crit Damage: 10

Shotgun:
Damage: 55
Action Points: 27
Rate of Fire: 1.5
Spread: 3
Crit % Multiplier: 1
Crit Damage: 27

Railgun Rifle:
Damage: 30
Action Points: 24
Rate of Fire: 2
Spread: 0.75
Crit % Multiplier: 3 (that's 3 times higher than the shotgun or the assault rifle)
Crit Damage: 30

 

[poocolator]

I get the feeling Vault Dweller is taking this a bit personally...

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are very perceptive. I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown here. Just popped a few pills to calm THE FUCK DOWN!!!! OH SHIT!!! I'VE GONE ALL CAPITALS!!! TOO LATE NOW!!!

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Take some sulphuric acid with a shot of water and don't get back to me.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Let's annoy VD a bit more, maybe he'll suffer a mental meltdown like Dexter in that one episode of Dexter's Lab.

 

[DefJam101]

Decline of Iron Tower Studios.

 

[poocolator]

... this is giving me a funny feeling in my pants.

 

[Fat Dragon]

You are very perceptive. I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown here. Just popped a few pills to calm THE FUCK DOWN!!!! OH SHIT!!! I'VE GONE ALL CAPITALS!!! TOO LATE NOW!!!

 

[Helton]

In my opinion, it's much better in the quest design and character system department, and slightly better or at least as good overall. It's a good discussion topic, so why won't you start one?

Won't start one cause I haven't played Fallout 3 and that'd make for a pretty shitty OP.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Is VD doing a chefe? I can see him disagreeing with some of Edward' points but this kind of vitriol is usually reserved for ESF retards.

What vitriol? Saying that he rushed the review and didn't check some easily available facts? The mind boggles.

Speaking of checking easily available facts... "Encumbrance". :Chuckle: East-Coast vs West-Coast? You shouldn't have rushed your review obviously VD. LULZ. My mind is boggling rite naow kekeke.

Built a 100% Railway Rifle. Used it for two enemies and put it away since it wasn't as good as smuggler's end, laser rifle, eugene, combat shotgun, sniper rifle, plasma rifle or the special smg.

In your opinion.

No, he's wrong remember! This isn't his opinion! He's flat-out wrong and needs to be corrected! Only you have the True Awesome Power™ required to correct Edward with his flat-out wrong Fallout 3 review which was clearly full of lies and hate and far inferior to your own Fallout 3 review with its Encumbrance and wrongly aligned Coasts!

In my opinion, it's an excellent weapon. Combat shotgun gives me 2 shots in VATS. The Railrifle gives me 3 shots and has a much better range.

Well that's the Combat Shotgun so, in your opinion, how is it compared to the Smuggler's End, the Laser Rifle, Eugene (Minigun), Sniper Rifle, Plasma Rifle and the Special SMG?

This is the RPGCodex, we have a high standard when it comes to RPGs. We'll compare games that call themselves RPGs to the best RPGs there are.

That's a great line, but it's a lie. I think I know the content page a bit better than you do, DU.

O'rly?

The vault is an amazing place. It has everything you need: a paranoid Overseer running the operations, his "thugs", whoever they are; genetic scientists (a testament to the vault's education system), and even a "greaser gang". The idea of a gang fits perfectly well into the vault concept and goes to show how good Bethesda is at designing things. [...]

You're no longer alone in the harsh, post-apocalyptic world. You have a father and not just any father. He's a scholar and a gentleman - voiced by Liam Neeson!!! - and you just can't live without him. Your love for your father is so strong that when he leaves you and the vault one day, you blindly follow him into the wasteland. [...]

Guns. Guns never change... Well, they kinda did, to be honest. It's a known fact that technological limitations prevented the original Fallout designers from including nuclear catapults, gravity guns, and silent, buy deadly Barbie-Head launchers. Now we can finally enjoy a Fallout game as it was meant to be.

Lots of dripping sarcasm filled with hate and anger towards Fallout 3 in that. What happened? FLIP-FLOP.

Like I said, high standards.

Positive reviews like Escape Velocity Nova, Divine Divinity, Knights of the Old Republic, and Silent Storm... Were they trashed because they weren't as good as the venerable classics? No, because these games belong to very different sub-genres. Saint said that he liked KOTOR. Doesn't mean that it's as good as Fallout? Of course not.

... or our positive Fallout 3 review by Chefe? And once again, you keep trying to dis-own Fallout 3 from its heritage. If EVN 3 came out that completely radically changed things, hey you know what? We'd compare that to the previous EVN's too. Fallout is seen as the pinnacle of good RPG design. It makes sense we'd compare the games in the series to their predecessors rather than closing our eyes, jamming our fingers in our ears and pretending it didn't happen. I realise you're a game developer yourself now and just want to cover your own ass but that's not what the Codex is meant to be about.

Was Morrowind as good as "the best RPGs there are"? I don't think so. Yet in 2002 3 out of 4 Codex admin called it a "must-play" RPG.

In an article titled "RPG Codex's picks for best CRPGs of 2002", all under nice big bold headings which state "must-play CRPGs of 2002". Here's what the Codex had to say about Morrowind in the 2005 Year in Review article:

Really, I think we completely pissed off the Bethesda fanboys. In fact, a huge chunk of them came over here and told us we were pretty stupid in lord knows how many threads. Heck, there's probably twenty or so threads asking why we didn't like Morrowind alone. Here's a hint though, it sucked. That's why we didn't like it.

Nice try though, VD.

You may want to take a look at the video I posted above. In other words, I disagree. Going back to what Eddie actually said:

"...the radically useless schematic weaponry.... schematic weaponry is pretty useless. ... by the time you can make them, they're mostly obsolete being underpowered...."

This simply isn't the case. While there are a few weapons that provide better DPS, the railway rifle is far from being useless, and like I said, is probably one of the top 5 guns in the game.

You're right, let's go back to what Eddie actually said, in full, with context:

Schematics come into play mid-way through the game due to their nature as mid-level quest rewards, and by the time you can make them, they're mostly obsolete being underpowered, and made useless by the abundance of ammunition for conventional weaponry.

You've shown a nice video that shows a Railway Rifle blowing heads off. Do you have one that shows the ammo availability? Here's one showing the Plasma Rifle though, a weapon Edward has said he found better than the Railway Rifle. Doesn't look like the player's having much difficulty with that in VATS. Here's a video with a guy killing the Behemoth with the Nuclear Catapult and the Chinese Assault Rifle. Again, looks like he doesn't have many problems there. And just for good measure, here's another one with the Sniper Rifle. Looks like all the weapons work fine to me. It certainly doesn't make me think there's a need to collect lots of junk and up the repair skill to make the Railway Rifle.

Did I say that it's better than Oblivion and that's it? I said it's the best Bethesda game since Daggerfall and that includes the above mentioned "must play Codex-recommended RPG" Morrowind.

Is that good enough though? Here's some more about how bad Oblivion was from the Codex 2007 Year in Review:

Bethesda's Oblivion, a revolutionary game that will, undoubtedly, influence RPGs for years to come; a game adored, loved, and praised by critics and its target audience alike, was the biggest event of the year. That alone can tell you what a shitty year that was.

Come now, when did Bethesda become holders of the RPG standard? Making a game that beats Bethesda's standards wouldn't be all that hard. And really, is it a good Fallout game too? People who'd previously played Fallout would probably like to know how Fallout 3 stands up to its predecessors, don't ya think?

Come on, guys. Surely you realize that there is more to guns - even in FO3 - than overall damage?

http://gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equipment/smallguns.php

Chinese Assault Rifle:
Damage: 51
Action Points: 23
Rate of Fire: 8
Spread: 1.5
Crit % Multiplier: 1
Crit Damage: 10

Shotgun:
Damage: 55
Action Points: 27
Rate of Fire: 1.5
Spread: 3
Crit % Multiplier: 1
Crit Damage: 27

Railgun Rifle:
Damage: 30
Action Points: 24
Rate of Fire: 2
Spread: 0.75
Crit % Multiplier: 3 (that's 3 times higher than the shotgun or the assault rifle)
Crit Damage: 30

http://gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equipme ... eapons.php

Damage: 45
Action Points: 25
Rate of Fire: 4
Spread: 0.2
Crit % Multiplier: 2 (that's twice the shotgun)
Crit Damage: 44 (that's more than the Railway Rifle)[/b]

http://gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equipment/bigguns.php

Eugene:

Damage: 105
Action Points: 30
Rate of Fire: 20
Spread: 2
Crit % Multiplier: 1
Crit Damage: 7

Come on, VD. Surely you realize that there is more to guns - even in FO3 - than overall damage? Besides, wasn't it you who said there's more to the weapons than just the stats? FLIP-FLOP.

 

[Twinfalls]

There appears to be a somewhat daft assumption running through this thread that the schematic weapons ought to be awesomely supa-powered for them to be justified as useful gameplay elements. Of course, had Bethesda done just that, the screeching on this forum would be rather predictable: OMG OVERPOWERED WEAPONZ BETHESDA MAKES GAMES FOR KIDZ AREN'T WE JUST SOOOO CODEX!

Bethesda are doomed both ways here, give schematics that are merely useful and worthwhile (if you make them early on) as they have done, and they get caned. Give schematics that are awesum and they get caned.

This is representative of the broader problem here though. The 'review' or 'thoughts' or whatever you want to call it by Murrow, shows the same mindset. It is a screed determined to demolish FO3 and Bethesda right from the outset, which reads as being just pre-determined and preaching to a choir. Problem is though that criticism is far more effective if given in a dispassionate and balanced manner.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You're trying too hard and it shows, DU.

Speaking of checking easily available facts... "Encumbrance". :Chuckle: East-Coast vs West-Coast? You shouldn't have rushed your review obviously VD.

These are minor mistakes. Typos, basically.

Only you have the True Awesome Power™ required to correct Edward with his flat-out wrong Fallout 3 review which was clearly full of lies and hate and far inferior to your own Fallout 3 review with its Encumbrance and wrongly aligned Coasts!

Keep working that Encumbrance thing since that's all you got.

In my opinion, it's an excellent weapon. Combat shotgun gives me 2 shots in VATS. The Railrifle gives me 3 shots and has a much better range.

Well that's the Combat Shotgun so, in your opinion, how is it compared to the Smuggler's End, the Laser Rifle, Eugene (Minigun), Sniper Rifle, Plasma Rifle and the Special SMG?

Did I claim it's the best weapon evar? I said it's not useless - which is what Edward, whom you so enthusiastically represent, said - and that I consider it one of the top 5 weapons. So, you may stop looking for better weapons and showing them to me for approval.

The vault is an amazing place. It has everything you need: a paranoid Overseer running the operations, his "thugs", whoever they are; genetic scientists (a testament to the vault's education system), and even a "greaser gang". The idea of a gang fits perfectly well into the vault concept and goes to show how good Bethesda is at designing things. [...]

You're no longer alone in the harsh, post-apocalyptic world. You have a father and not just any father. He's a scholar and a gentleman - voiced by Liam Neeson!!! - and you just can't live without him. Your love for your father is so strong that when he leaves you and the vault one day, you blindly follow him into the wasteland. [...]

Guns. Guns never change... Well, they kinda did, to be honest. It's a known fact that technological limitations prevented the original Fallout designers from including nuclear catapults, gravity guns, and silent, buy deadly Barbie-Head launchers. Now we can finally enjoy a Fallout game as it was meant to be.

Lots of dripping sarcasm filled with hate and anger towards Fallout 3 in that. What happened? FLIP-FLOP.

I would never call you stupid, DU, but this is borderline. I criticized FO3 setting in that article. I criticized FO3 setting in my review. Where is the inconsistency? The flip-flopping? Like I said, you're trying to hard.

And once again, you keep trying to dis-own Fallout 3 from its heritage.

It was disowned when Bethesda bought the license.

If EVN 3 came out that completely radically changed things, hey you know what? We'd compare that to the previous EVN's too. Fallout is seen as the pinnacle of good RPG design. It makes sense we'd compare the games in the series to their predecessors rather than closing our eyes, jamming our fingers in our ears and pretending it didn't happen. I realise you're a game developer yourself now and just want to cover your own ass but that's not what the Codex is meant to be about.

Which is why you posted Chefe's "review" on the front page. Good job there. It sure reminded everyone what the Codex was meant to be about.

Your comment about covering my own ass is silly. If I wanted to keep my ass in mint condition, I would have stayed out of it and politely declined NMA's request.

Was Morrowind as good as "the best RPGs there are"? I don't think so. Yet in 2002 3 out of 4 Codex admin called it a "must-play" RPG.

In an article titled "RPG Codex's picks for best CRPGs of 2002", all under nice big bold headings which state "must-play CRPGs of 2002". Here's what the Codex had to say about Morrowind in the 2005 Year in Review article:

Really, I think we completely pissed off the Bethesda fanboys. In fact, a huge chunk of them came over here and told us we were pretty stupid in lord knows how many threads. Heck, there's probably twenty or so threads asking why we didn't like Morrowind alone. Here's a hint though, it sucked. That's why we didn't like it.

How does that invalidate the link to Morrowind love-fest again? Looks like you're trying to play the "must-play of 2002" card, but it's not like it was the only game in 2002 as all the other picks show.

You've shown a nice video that shows a Railway Rifle blowing heads off. Do you have one that shows the ammo availability?

Never had a problem with it. If you're not going to take my word for it, I can post a screen showing the rifle ammo. Since it's weightless, you can always pick it up and buy it when you see it. I'd say it's no more rare than the shotgun or the magnum ammo.

Here's one showing the Plasma Rifle though, a weapon Edward has said he found better than the Railway Rifle.

Good for him. Now go back and find the quote stating that the railway rifle is the bestest weapon in the entire game. As for the plasma rifle, I found my first one at lvl 15, when I was on my way to Vault 87. I built the railway rifle when I was lvl 8.

There are plenty of great mid-level weapons in Fallout, but they get replaced by more powerful energy/gauss weapons, which doesn't mean that the mid-level weapons are completely useless, does it?

Are you that desperate to prove me wrong?

Here's a video with a guy killing the Behemoth with the Nuclear Catapult and the Chinese Assault Rifle. Again, looks like he doesn't have many problems there. And just for good measure, here's another one with the Sniper Rifle. Looks like all the weapons work fine to me. It certainly doesn't make me think there's a need to collect lots of junk and up the repair skill to make the Railway Rifle.

One more time. I didn't claim that it's the best weapon. I disagreed that it's useless and the video I posted proves that it's far from useless. Your videos prove nothing but you desire to post something. That's one. Two, Repair is a very useful skill. Contrary to what you may think, it's not a "craft a useless weapon" skill.

Come now, when did Bethesda become holders of the RPG standard? Making a game that beats Bethesda's standards wouldn't be all that hard.

Considering that many consider Daggerfall to be a top 10 game (even Rosh had good things to say about it), it may be a bit harder than you think.

And really, is it a good Fallout game too? People who'd previously played Fallout would probably like to know how Fallout 3 stands up to its predecessors, don't ya think?

You didn't read my review, did you?

Come on, guys. Surely you realize that there is more to guns - even in FO3 - than overall damage?
http://gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equipment/smallguns.php

Damage: 45
Action Points: 25
Rate of Fire: 4
Spread: 0.2
Crit % Multiplier: 2 (that's twice the shotgun)
Crit Damage: 44 (that's more than the Railway Rifle)[/b]

You are determined to prove that the railway rifle is not the best weapon in the game, are you? Even though I claimed nothing of this sort. Well, gotta admire the determination.

Btw, that critical % multiplier thing. Rifle's x3 is a lot, a lot more than x2 when you multiply it on your character's critical %.

Come on, VD. Surely you realize that there is more to guns - even in FO3 - than overall damage? Besides, wasn't it you who said there's more to the weapons than just the stats? FLIP-FLOP.

In case you're wondering, this didn't make any fucking sense, DU. And I didn't say stats, I said damage. Pay attention please.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Here goes.

It's kind of pointless to argue without facts, replacing them with assumptions and theories.

The majority that I remember stuck out in my mind as "gimme more money" checks, thus I wrote it in my review. That's what speech seemed to do for me, mostly, so I felt I should note that. And I agree that we're basically both arguing off of shaky ground, seeing as neither of us has hit every speech check and recorded them. I don't have a flawless numerical figure for you; I think that goes a little above and beyond to tally and classify every skill check. All I'm saying is that's what stuck out in my mind as the majority of speech checks. Kind of a spin answer, but probably the best I can muster.

Alternative solutions are bad?

Yes, and no. Bethesda did them half-assed, and thus they don't really feel very "differentiated". They just feel like a way to make the science/medicine/lady killer/child at heart/etc character have the same option as the speech character. You don't really get that essential feel of your character's path being just a bit unique based on their abilities.

Let's look at some examples of Fallout 1 versus Fallout 3 and their approaches to one of the ending areas (Cathedral versus Raven Rock)

Cathedral
-Get to the Master peacefully (via Morpheus or via CoC Robes), and convince the Master to stop his plans.
-Kill the Master yourself
-Use science/repair on the bomb to detonate it.
-Agree with the Master and join him.

Raven Rock
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and [Speech] Eden to death through dialogue
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and [Science] Eden to death through dialogue
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and [Item: Detonation Codes] Eden to death through dialogue
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and "agree" with Eden (whether on not you really do is another question).

See the difference? The "alternate solutions" in Fallout 3 aren't very different from one another. Just about every character will do things the same way in Fallout 3, whereas in Fallout 1, the gameplay changes drastically depending on what kind of character you're playing. That's what's missing from Fallout 3's alternative solutions.

Speech does matter in FO3, it matters a lot more than in the previous games (Morrowind and Oblivion), in the Gothic series, and quite a few other, well liked games.

Not that I disagree with you entirely on skipping crap, but I feel like a good RPG is about opening up new opportunities and different routes based on your character, not just shaving off things. How come there's barely more than a single opportunity I found in Fallout 3 that seemed to uniquely reward a speech character with interesting content, besides "gimme more stuff"? How doesn't that marginalize the skill's value?

It's not. Well, maybe on the xbox.

No....it is. I'm not a superb FPS player. I'm ok, but not particularly great (if you haven't noticed already), at crunching stats and finding the best possible solutions. But I was able to set Fallout 3 to the highest difficulty setting right off the bat, and breeze through the game, encountering very little challenge.

I mean, it's flawed game design that makes it easy. Abundant resources, poorly designed enemies, the ability to access your inventory and buff fully from a paused state, and many more things. Just like Morrowind and Oblivion before it, it's a challenge of not breaking the game. As Arcanum had horribly unbalanced combat from the strain of trying to combine real-time with turn-based, so does Fallout 3 from poorly meshing FPS and RPG together.

I mean, seriously. I consider stuff like Wizardry 8, Realms of Arkania, and Jagged Alliance 2 challenging "RPGs". I consider stuff like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Fallout average difficulty. Fallout 3 is less than that on the highest possible setting. It's just not a hard game. Check locations like GameFAQs or the ESF; it's a complaint there too, with the typical "solve it yourself; it's not Bethesda's fault" answers like "don't use half the game's mechanics".

The railway rifle

Okay....let me break this down.

-You need two schematics for it to begin to be of any useful strength. I found only one.
-It requires it's own unique ammo that is in short supply, unlike every other weapon's ammunition.
-It can't be conventionally repaired, unlike other weaponry.
-It requires finding a bunch of junk.

I was comparing it to being marginally better than a hunting rifle or a generic assault rifle in damage potential, but infinitely more of a pain to find, make, and maintain. Why would I use the railway rifle, when I can already wreck Super Mutant Masters with hunting/assault rifles that will always be filled with ammo and in near perfect repair, while the railway rifle carries a lot of baggage and annoyance? Taking other factors into consideration, it seemed pretty damn useless to me. Although it seemed like things lined up well enough for it to be useful to you.

I hope I don't have to explain why FO3 is much closer to Morrowind and Gothic than to the original Fallout games.

No, but you might have to explain why I, or anyone else for that matter, should look at Morrowind/Gothic as some sort of good design pinnacle or example, and especially for a Fallout game. I mean, I personally think that "open world" or "sandbox" RPGs open the way for a lot of bad design features, like overloading the gameworld with forgettable dungeons, skimping on a solid and definied character system, homogenizing gameplay opportunities for all characters, and ditching elements of choices with consequence.

You may be alright with putting it beside Morrowind and Gothic, and labeling it ok. I'm not. I think the "sandbox RPG" design is inherently flawed, at least way most developers seem to do it. And I don't see why doing well in comparison to games built off a flawed set of fundamentals is something to be proud of.

Come on. You know what I mean by "action game".

I know...I know....

The formula is 10+INT. So, yes, of course, you get 20 points with 10 INT, but you'd get 18 points with 8 INT. See, assuming again.

Got me here. Though I'll just join in societies' recent trend to shift blame from themselves onto others and blame Bethesda for not making a concise, detailed, explanatory character creation screen a la Fallout 1 and 2. It feels good to be a spineless leech....

Overall, you are a good writer

Ahhhhhhh....no.

but you rushed the review. That's the problem. Should have taken more time to consider and absorb your experience and check the facts.

Yeah....sort of. I'd say it wasn't so much rushing it, as much as being a bit boneheaded in some things. I mean, I check up the railway rifle damage online, but don't think to check my skill point formula? I guess I just thought it was cool and threw it in.

The 'review' or 'thoughts' or whatever you want to call it by Murrow, shows the same mindset. It is a screed determined to demolish FO3 and Bethesda right from the outset, which reads as being just pre-determined and preaching to a choir. Problem is though that criticism is far more effective if given in a dispassionate and balanced manner.

First off, what makes you think it isn't? Do you perhaps have some assumptions? Do you have previous bias? Are you predetermined to label my review as just "another piece by the 'Look at me, I blindly hate Bethesda!' Codex crowd"? I feel your criticism of my criticism isn't dispassionate nor balanced enough to be effective.

Scummy jackassery aside, I disagree wholeheartedly. I think good criticism can be slanted. I feel a good review is about going into a game with an open, but critical mindset, playing it a decent amount, forming an opinion of the game, and then arguing that opinion. It's damn near impossible to deliver an unbiased opinion, and with the miracle of the internet, anyone interested in games can find a multitude of reviews, and hence a multitude of arguments for or against the game, or maybe somewhere in between.

Go ahead and write it off as Bethesda bashing and the decline of the Codex if it floats your boat though. Blanket generalizations are awesome fun.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

There appears to be a somewhat daft assumption running through this thread that the schematic weapons ought to be awesomely supa-powered for them to be justified as useful gameplay elements.

No, I don't think anyone wants them supa-powered but, just useful as opposed to:

The Railway Rifle seems pretty useless as it's a slightly stronger hunting rifle, except that it doesn't gain the benefit of being easily repaired/resupplied while fighting many gun-toting enemies. And I even think railway spikes may have had weight too. I could be wrong on this though.

The weapon's not easily repaired (unless you "collect junk just in case" according to VD). VD's also been talking about damage stats all through-out the thread and even himself said "there's more to the weapons than just damage lulz!!1". Yet said himself that he used the Railway Rifle "until I ran out of spikes". A point Edward raises as an issue re: the weapon not being as easily re-supplied as other available weapons. Now here's the fun part, that's just the Railway Rifle. Just one of the schematic weapons. Edward went on to justify his position in the review by saying:

The Rock-It Launcher determines all it's damage based on how much the junk you fire weighs....which is more than a little weak in Fallout 3, seeing as all other guns have weightless ammunition and you're swimming in enough of it that the Rock-It Launcher's usefulness is diminished, at least in my eyes.

The Nuka-Grenade might be good....it's just to get the schematic you have to give up 30 of the semi-rare ingredient that it's based around, leaving you very little left to toy with, unless of course you're a die-hard dungeon freak who will explore every area and go over them with a fine-tooth comb. And even then, is it that much better than the sea of plasma grenades I was getting from the Enclave patrols that were out in force by the time I'd finished "The Nuka Cola Challenge"?

The bottlecap mine might have been good in design, but as I mentioned in the review, I could never get mines to work properly as enemies would step over them, but not set them off.

That's 3 other schematic weapons which have been completely ignored so far. As far as I can see, Edward's point still stands that these weapons appear to be pretty useless when compared to the other avaialble weapons and when you take more than damage into consideration.

Speaking of checking easily available facts... "Encumbrance". :Chuckle: East-Coast vs West-Coast? You shouldn't have rushed your review obviously VD.

These are minor mistakes. Typos, basically.

Which could've been corrected with some "simple fact checking", something you raged against Edward for not doing (even though he's so far backed up each one of his points quite adequately). You said yourself you just hate double standards.

Did I claim it's the best weapon evar?

Yep. Vault Dweller, page 1 of this thread, 2nd paragraph "It's fucking awesome [..] One of the top 5 weapons, I think".

I said it's not useless

Sorry, you don't get to say it's "fucking awesome" and repeatedly state it's in "your top 5" to then turn around and say "No, I just said it's not useless!". FLIP-FLOP. Top 5 quite clearly means "one of the best weapons evar". Particularly when we've gone through more than 5 weapons which are equally comparable.

which is what Edward, whom you so enthusiastically represent, said

... when compared to other weapons, particularly their ammo availability and the ability to repair them. Oh and we're still only talking about one of five weapons that Edward listed which lead to his statement. I note you've conveniently ignored justifying the weaknesses of the Rock-It Launcher, Nuka-Grenade and bottlecap mine.

Guns. Guns never change... Well, they kinda did, to be honest. It's a known fact that technological limitations prevented the original Fallout designers from including nuclear catapults, gravity guns, and silent, buy deadly Barbie-Head launchers. Now we can finally enjoy a Fallout game as it was meant to be.

Lots of dripping sarcasm filled with hate and anger towards Fallout 3 in that. What happened? FLIP-FLOP.

I would never call you stupid, DU, but this is borderline. I criticized FO3 setting in that article. I criticized FO3 setting in my review. Where is the inconsistency? The flip-flopping? Like I said, you're trying to hard.

I think you're trying too hard to peddle yourself out of the hate and vitriol you've directed at FO3 ever since the game was announced. A review comes along that's written along the lines of all the news posts and reviews you wrote and you can't FLIP-FLOP fast enough to claim:

• Fallout 3 shouldn't be compared to the other RPGs in the series because "It's an action game!".
• Setting and other faults can be excused because it's "better than Morrowind", a game widely criticised in the forums here.
• How dare Edward criticise this action game for its RPG elements?

Incidentally, the "barbie head launcher" you criticise above is one of those schematic weapons. Yes, now we can finally enjoy a Fallout game as it was meant to be.

And once again, you keep trying to dis-own Fallout 3 from its heritage.

It was disowned when Bethesda bought the license.

It's still marketed as an RPG though and should be reviewed as such. The same way we reviewed Oblivion.

If EVN 3 came out that completely radically changed things, hey you know what? We'd compare that to the previous EVN's too. Fallout is seen as the pinnacle of good RPG design. It makes sense we'd compare the games in the series to their predecessors rather than closing our eyes, jamming our fingers in our ears and pretending it didn't happen. I realise you're a game developer yourself now and just want to cover your own ass but that's not what the Codex is meant to be about.

Which is why you posted Chefe's "review" on the front page. Good job there. It sure reminded everyone what the Codex was meant to be about.

Actually, it's why Chefe compares it to the previous Fallout's:

Ironically, discovery is also a cause of hurt in the world of Fallout 3. The game is perfectly fine with the player choosing the wild dialog options, but as soon as things get back to the real world, it doesn’t want you to go off track. Once a script ends, it ends, and the game doesn’t want you running it anymore. This is perhaps the biggest difference between Fallout 3 and its predecessors. The original Fallout begged you to break it. It begged you to get caught at level 2 by the Super Mutants, and attempt to kill Killian with Tycho at your side. Fallout 3 gives you choice, but outside of those choices it can get fuzzy. You attack someone through insulting dialog instead of starting the fight by running up and clobbering them with your baseball bat. There are many things to discover around the volcano, just don’t jump in it, or go to that area labeled “Caution: Native Cannibals”.

He even finished up with the line "But above all, it’s a post nuclear role playing game". I posted the review precisely because I wanted the discussion about whether Fallout 3 really is a Fallout game or not.

Your comment about covering my own ass is silly. If I wanted to keep my ass in mint condition, I would have stayed out of it and politely declined NMA's request.

No, your style is actually to come out swinging.

How does that invalidate the link to Morrowind love-fest again? Looks like you're trying to play the "must-play of 2002" card, but it's not like it was the only game in 2002 as all the other picks show.

Must-play of 2002 means out of the RPGs released in 2002 (of which decent RPGs are few and far between - you should know that, you used to work here), Morrowind was one of them. You know, I wouldn't want to call you stupid VD but you sure do struggle understanding English sometimes. You're also conveniently ignoring the fact Morrowind, despite it being in that list, had several flaws which have been derided through-out these forums. I also doubt Morrowind would make the list of top 10 RPGs of all time, which incidentally, Fallout would be on. Doesn't it make sense to compare Fallout to the best, when it's supposed to be one of the best? Particularly when Morrowind did have plenty of flaws.

You've shown a nice video that shows a Railway Rifle blowing heads off. Do you have one that shows the ammo availability?

Never had a problem with it.

VD, you really gotta remember what you type. On page 1 in this thread you quite clearly said:

I used it until I ran out of spikes.

FLIP-FLOP.

If you're not going to take my word for it

That's just it VD, you seem to be contradicting yourself with every word that comes out of your mouth. One minute the weapon is in the top 5 and fucking awesome, the next you state you "only said it wasn't useless". One minute you're running out of ammo, the next minute ammo was never a problem.

There are plenty of great mid-level weapons in Fallout, but they get replaced by more powerful energy/gauss weapons, which doesn't mean that the mid-level weapons are completely useless, does it?

They're useless if there's no real opportunity to use them. Edward seems to make it quite clear that three out of the five schematic weapons are utterly, completely useless given they use weight for ammo (when all other ammo is weightless), have AI issues or there are more abundant weapons available without the hassle of hauling junk. The Railway Rifle obviously has some issues which, unless you like hauling junk, seem to make it not very worth-while.

One more time. I didn't claim that it's the best weapon.

One more time: FLIP-FLOP. "It's fucking awesome [..] One of the top 5 weapons, I think".

I disagreed that it's useless and the video I posted proves that it's far from useless. Your videos prove nothing but you desire to post something.

... coming from the guy who said that he's only here as part of some "arguing for the sake of arguing!" program. Though it's interesting that VD posts a video showing how awesome the Railway Rifle is and then posts a list of stats on how much the Chinese Assault Rifle sucks. I post a video showing someone using that very same rifle to take out the toughest monster in the game and apparently, that doesn't mean anything. The video you posted shows the weapon killing people quite happily. It doesn't address ammunition concerns (which seems that it may or may not be an issue for you depending on what suits your argument at the time) or the repair issues. The video I posted shows several other weapons (probably not in VD's personal top 5 LOLOLOL) which also show they're far from useless. Couple ammo considerations and repair considerations together and you're left with the question "Hmmm... Use this Railway Rifle which I don't have ammo for and which when it breaks, won't be able to be repaired or I'll just keep using this Chinese Assault Rifle which works quite well and doesn't have those issues...".

Come now, when did Bethesda become holders of the RPG standard? Making a game that beats Bethesda's standards wouldn't be all that hard.

Considering that many consider Daggerfall to be a top 10 game (even Rosh had good things to say about it), it may be a bit harder than you think.

You really have come full circle. Once upon a time you used to argue that was a different team of developers. FLIP-FLOP ^ 3.

And really, is it a good Fallout game too? People who'd previously played Fallout would probably like to know how Fallout 3 stands up to its predecessors, don't ya think?

You didn't read my review, did you?

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. I made the comment in reference to your constant assertion in this thread that Fallout 3 is an "action game" which shouldn't be compared to the previous Fallouts. I note in your review that you do. You're FLIP-FLOPing more than Rex!

You are determined to prove that the railway rifle is not the best weapon in the game, are you?

Nope, just that for its issues, there are other weapons available at the same time which limits its usefulness, rendering it almost completely useless when compared to those other weapons. And that on the whole, most of the schematic weapons suffer from similar major problems, making them all virtually useless as Edward claimed in his review. You're yet to prove otherwise.

 

[Tintin]

I would never call you stupid, DU, but this is borderline.

I wouldn't want to call you stupid VD but you sure do struggle understanding English sometimes.

Is the sexual tension thick in here or what

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

What the fuck is going on here? Can someone summarize it for me.

 

[Fat Dragon]

One hell of a good fight going on here. Two-on-one, can the mighty Vault Dweller handle such a battle? Find out next time.

 

[Twinfalls]

I forgot about the bottlecap mine. That was the only other schematic that I've tried (the first was the shish-kebab which was very useful and worthwhile and also rather cool). The bottlecap mine is fucking awesome. One of the top 5 weapons I have some across thus far. 300+ damage (I haven't seen any mine that comes anywhere near close). One of those will take care of a group of lesser beasts who might otherwise give you serious grief if cornered. Place a bunch of them well and you can take down behemoths without unholstering anything.

Well worth getting. Precisely what the fuck else would you want from such a weapon? Should it do your household banking as well?

 

[ricolikesrice]

about the difficulty of FO3:

my first playthrough was on hard with a character that never ever put any points into any combat skills nor repair. it was quite challenging - had to reload plenty of times, was always low on stimpacks, ammunition etc. only when i decided to follow the mainquest and found tesla armor + plasmarifles the game became rather easy at the end...
i tried killing the vampire-wannabes in arefu at lvl 9 but stood absolutely no chance.

my next playthrough was on very hard with a character that focused on small guns and repair. the game has been hilariously easily from the start. at lvl 9 now and i have 110 stimpacks (and maybe used 3-10 in the entire playthrough so far) as well as 200+ ammo for every weapon there is (fucking stupid that ammo weighs nothing ).
i steamrolled the vampire-wannabes in arefu at lvl 5 in a bloody massacre while barely losing health.


guess it pretty much boils down to how much you skill up your weapon skills and repair.
doesnt have much to do with being a good FPS player or not.

i suggest leaving those skills the heck alone, cause the game is a lot more fun that way.

or try one of those rebalance mods.

 

[kris]

guess it pretty much boils down to how much you skill up your weapon skills and repair.
doesnt have much to do with being a good FPS player or not.

The difference between being a good fps player and not concerning PC skills is wether you will lose few or a lot of bullets. I can take out several super mutants without a scratch just by using a bit of cover. A bit harder against melee opponents, although a VATS in the leg can help you there.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Bethesda are doomed both ways here

This is representative of the broader problem here though. The 'review' or 'thoughts' or whatever you want to call it by Murrow, shows the same mindset. It is a screed determined to demolish FO3 and Bethesda right from the outset, which reads as being just pre-determined and preaching to a choir.

Indeed, I think you've gotten to the heart of it.

Although, looking at it from a different angle, DU did post up a link to my own thoughts on the matter. Which makes him a man of good taste, a gentleman and a scholar.

Seriously though, and I say this with the utmost objectivity, anyone who links to my writing is probably immensely popular with the ladies. I'm just saying, it's something to consider while you're debating gun damage or whatever.

 

[Vault Dweller]

All I'm saying is that's what stuck out in my mind as the majority of speech checks. Kind of a spin answer, but probably the best I can muster.

Since we are true gentlemen, I'll accept your answer and salute you with monocle.

Let's look at some examples of Fallout 1 versus Fallout 3 and their approaches to one of the ending areas (Cathedral versus Raven Rock)

Cathedral
-Get to the Master peacefully (via Morpheus or via CoC Robes), and convince the Master to stop his plans.
-Kill the Master yourself
-Use science/repair on the bomb to detonate it.
-Agree with the Master and join him.

Raven Rock
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and [Speech] Eden to death through dialogue
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and [Science] Eden to death through dialogue
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and [Item: Detonation Codes] Eden to death through dialogue
-Shoot up tons of Enclave and "agree" with Eden (whether on not you really do is another question).

Once again we are talking about two different things. Fallout is a much better RPG. Nobody is disputing this fact. However, just because FO3 quest design isn't as good as that of Fallout, doesn't mean it's bad. Alternative solutions ARE a good feature no matter how you look at it.

See the difference? The "alternate solutions" in Fallout 3 aren't very different from one another.

So? Are they that different in much loved and praised Bloodlines? No. But Bloodlines, of course, is a much better game due to excellent writing, voice-over, and atmosphere. The design, however, is as linear as it gets, many quests are simple fetch/kill/destoy without any alternative options and outcomes.

Not that I disagree with you entirely on skipping crap, but I feel like a good RPG is about opening up new opportunities and different routes based on your character, not just shaving off things.

And how many RPGs actually deliver that? Should Daggerfall be thrown out of that sweet top 10 spot? Should the Codex stop praising the Witcher, a linear adventure of a badass dude who doesn't need speech skills?

Okay....let me break this down.

-You need two schematics for it to begin to be of any useful strength. I found only one.
-It requires it's own unique ammo that is in short supply, unlike every other weapon's ammunition.
-It can't be conventionally repaired, unlike other weaponry.
-It requires finding a bunch of junk.

- I found only one schematic and had no problems with the gun. Extra schematics increase the overall quality (i.e. you start not with 40% quality, but 60%).
- Because I usually killed things with one shot, I spent a lot less ammo than I would using a different weapon. In fact, I remember running out of the assault rifle's and shotgun's ammo more often.
- It can be easily repaired because I can easily make more of these rifles. Finding more shotguns, chinese rifles, and magnums in early- or mid-game to keep my weapons in decent shape was much more problematic.
- Finding a bunch of junk isn't a problem in FO3. It's everywhere.

Overall, you should have checked the rifle if you wanted to complain about the schematic weapons and call them useless. That's all I'm saying. Looking things up online and making assumptions is a big no-no and you know it. Had Fallout wiki listed the high critical rate and low spread, you would have realized that the rifle isn't useless. They didn't because it's the internet, so...

No, but you might have to explain why I, or anyone else for that matter, should look at Morrowind/Gothic as some sort of good design pinnacle or example, and especially for a Fallout game.

Would you compare Tactics to Fallout 1 or Jagged Alliance to determine the overall quality? Or just because Fallout 3 was billed as a sequel instead of a sandbox shooter with RPG elements it actually is, you refuse to accept this simple fact and continue trashing it because it's not as good as Fallout 1?

You may be alright with putting it beside Morrowind and Gothic, and labeling it ok. I'm not. I think the "sandbox RPG" design is inherently flawed, at least way most developers seem to do it. And I don't see why doing well in comparison to games built off a flawed set of fundamentals is something to be proud of.

Well, then write an article discussing the sandbox design and its flaws. I'm well aware that there are many people who don't like sandbox games and think that Daggerfall and Gothic are crap games, just like there are people who think that dungeon crawlers like Wizardry are stupid and pointless.

You can't however say game X sucks because I don't like its sub-genre, but unfortunately, that's what you just did.