Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[Darth Roxor]

This thread is some quality fun I must say *grabs more popcorn and enjoys the show*

 

[Vault Dweller]

The weapon's not easily repaired (unless you "collect junk just in case" according to VD).

Well, if you don't collect junk, why the fuck would you want to build junk-based weapons? This moment is brought to you but the Duh! Foundation.

Yet said himself that he used the Railway Rifle "until I ran out of spikes".

I also ran out of assault rifles ammo quite a few times. And don't even get me started on the magnum! What a rip!!!

A point Edward raises as an issue re: the weapon not being as easily re-supplied as other available weapons.

It's more easily re-supplied because you can easily make more. The parts aren't rare and workstations are strategically placed throughout the game. Finding more magnums and shotguns could be a problem, I agree.

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.

Have you played the game? Or are you just bored and wish to be entertained? Plenty of people here said that the mine is a very powerful weapon:

"If you've got a couple of bottle cap mines, or a load of fragmines behemoths go down quite easily even at lowish levels. You just have to lay a bit of an ambush and lead them into it, the bottlecap mines probably won't kill it, but they will 90% of the time cripple it. So you can throw grenades at it and spam it to death. Alternatively if you get the dart gun schematics you can use that to cripple their legs instantly."

"Playing skirmish with a Deathclaw is rather fun.

i.e. Set up a bottle-cap mine, flank that with some frag mines for good measure, run forth and tease with a few .32 rounds, retreat and +50..."

"The bottlecap mine is fucking awesome. One of the top 5 weapons I have some across thus far."

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.

Adequately? He admitted that he assumed one thing and checked wiki (which happened to be incomplete) for the other, making an incorrect assumption.

Like I said, keep working that Encumbrance thing. It's bound to pay off eventually.

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".

Lesson of the day: discover the difference between "the best" and "one of the top 5" and report to me for the next task.

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.

You are like a kid who screams FLIP-FLOP every time hoping that one of those times he would be right. I stand by what I said. I consider it to be a top 5 weapon. No, you haven't proven anything because you've completely ignored the insane critical rate. However, even if you disagree with me and think that it's not a top 5 weapon, there is no fucking way this weapon can be called useless, and that's what my point was.

I note you've conveniently ignored justifying the weaknesses of the Rock-It Launcher, Nuka-Grenade and bottlecap mine.

I haven't tried them and unlike some people I prefer not to discuss things I know nothing about. I did point out that a lot of people find the mine useful.

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.

One more time. What I criticized before, I criticized in my review. With the same sarcasm. It's clear to everyone but you. Well, to be honest, I'm sure that it's clear to you but you like typing FLIP-FLOP a lot, so...

[*]Fallout 3 shouldn't be compared to the other RPGs in the series because "It's an action game!".

Isn't it?

[*]Setting and other faults can be excused because it's "better than Morrowind", a game widely criticised in the forums here.

Widely? Just how widely, if you don't mind me asking? Widely enough to be voted a must-play game by 3 out of 4 admins?

[*]How dare Edward criticise this action game for its RPG elements?

Is that what I said?

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

So in your mind there is no difference between different sub-genres and Fallout, Wizardry 8, and Daggerfall should be measured with one ruler? Fascinating.

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

Was it a critical Codex review? No. Was even worthy of being called "RPG Codex review"? No. Moving on.

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.

Yet Saint had no problems picking different games. Because decent RPGs were few and far between in 2002 - Arx Fatalis, Avenum 3, Divine Divinity, Geneforge, Icewind Dale 2, Prince of Qin, Prelude to Darkness.

Yep. These 3 admins were practically forced to pick Morrowind.

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.

Really? No way. An RPG's several flaws were derided through-out these forums? Like anyone would believe THAT!

Next thing you tell me is that Arcanum, Daggerfall, Bloodlines, and Torment had flaws too! You are quite a joker, Mr. Underlord. You almost had me there.

I also doubt Morrowind would make the list of top 10 RPGs of all time...

Well, you may want to take a look and see how many upstanding Codex citizens have picked it as a top 10 RPG:

6 votes on the first page, over 20 overall, including Shagnak, Elwro, Baby Arm (race traitors, all of them!)

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.

I see that you took Selective Quoting perk. A good choice!

Here is what I said:
"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, it's not "one minute it's a top 5, another minute it's not useless". It was in the same fucking sentence, clearly explained.

As for the ammo comment, I ran out of ammo many times during the game. I used the Chinese Rifle the most and I ran out of ammo at least 4-5 times. Yet it's probably the best gun in the game. I ran out of magnum and shotgun ammo quite a few times too. So?

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.

Did I say that the chinese rifle sucked? Since nobody complained about it and called it useless, who cares about your video? Why won't you post a Fallout video to prove how great that game 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.

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.

Daggerfall not good enough then? Fair enough. See all those "Morrowind is a top 10 RPG" posts I liked to then.

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!

Well, if I addressed both points in my review, then what flip-flopping are we talking about? Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that you simply like to shout FLIP-FLOP. Makes you laugh, I suppose.

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.

Yes, imaginary problems are the hardest to deal with. Even crystal clear facts like that video and the stat overview aren't good enough, eh?

 

[Fat Dragon]

Having tried all the schematics equipment myself, I found that none of them were useless. You find plenty of junk laying around so finding the parts needed to make a spare for repairing isn't a pain at all. Plus, once you find a schematic the list of needed parts becomes permanently logged on the pipboy so you always know what to look for.

Nuka Grenade and Bottlecap mines are far more powerful than the standard mines and grenades but you'll have to sacrifice some good items to make them. The grenades take the quantum drinks which can restore AP, and the mines require money caps to make. 10 caps per mine but if you want to make enough to last you for a while prepare to fork over a few hundred for them. But considering just how powerful they are it's worth it.

Rock-it launcher is a very useful big gun and is a fucking powerhouse with base dmg at 50 + what your skill adds to the dmg + extra dmg from heavier pieces of junk fired. Ammo is NEVER a problem with this since it just uses random junk for ammo. And since the parts needed to build new ones for repair are easy to find...Well, just collect lots of junk and this gun will be the only one you need to carry with you since you won't ever run out of ammo. No needing to switch to other, possibly weaker weapons when empty like you would with say the Chinese Rifle for a Hunting Rifle. Also a good fall back weapon if you carry missile launchers or Fatmen and run out of rockets.

Shishkebab is simply the strongest melee weapon in the game so if you're a melee guy there'd be no reason not to get this one.

Dart Gun is good if you come up against heavy hitters like Deathclaws, Behemoths or those mutant bears since it does a lot of damage to limbs usually giving an instant cripple. Ammo for it is very plentiful as well.

Railray Rifle, while not dealing the most damage wise, is a very useful gun to have. It has the accuracy of the Hunting Rifle but does more base dmg, and range is also better than the Chinese Assault Rifle. It's the best fall back weapon should you run out of ammo for your main. Ammo is plentiful for it, I usually found around 50 spikes in almost every raider camp and ruined trains I came across. It also has an awesome steampunk-ish design so that's a plus.

Deathclaw Gauntlet is a good melee weapon too. It ignores damage resistance.

 

[MetalCraze]

Am I wrong or had VD indeed lost it recently? His arguments are incredibly flawed and sound like something I would've heard on ESF.
The shit in "you can't compare sequels because they got different camera perspective" style sounds so bethforums fanboyish despite both having dialogues/rpg system/quests.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Having tried all the schematics equipment myself, I found that none of them were useless. You find plenty of junk laying around so finding the parts needed to make a spare for repairing isn't a pain at all.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. How can a weapon be not useless if you have to make it?!!! I have to click on a workstation, select what I want to make, and click again!!! That's two clicks vs one to pick something up. That's like 300% more clicks! Think before you post, ok?

Am I wrong or had VD indeed lost it recently? His arguments are incredibly flawed and sound like something I would've heard on ESF.

More specific?

The shit in "you can't compare sequels because they got different camera perspective" style sounds so bethforums fanboyish

Is that what I said? Or did I say that comparing games of two different (as in radically different) sub-genres is kinda pointless? And did I not mention in my review that FO3 is a pale imitation comparing to the first two games?

...despite both having dialogues/rpg system/quests

Both games have quests? And character systems? That's your argument?

 

[Fat Dragon]

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. How can a weapon be not useless if you have to make it?!!! I have to click on a workstation, select what I want to make, and click again!!! That's two clicks vs one to pick something up. That's like 300% more clicks! Think before you post, ok?

Of course! How could I have been so dense? You have crushed me.

 

[MetalCraze]

Am I wrong or had VD indeed lost it recently? His arguments are incredibly flawed and sound like something I would've heard on ESF.

More specific?

k
Arguments in a style of "just forget that there are other RPGs and F3 will be a good game" / "you can't compare them because they have some differences!"

...despite both having dialogues/rpg system/quests

Both games have quests? And character systems? That's your argument?

Fallout 3 is positioned as a sequel, both games share the same universe, have quests, have dialogues, have nearly similar character system (though in F3 it is SPECIAL in name only), share lore. So I don't see any reason why anyone can't compare F3 to F1/2 or any other RPG for that matter. But oh wait - F3 has first person perspective! You can't compare them! Just because games have different -combat mechanics- doesn't mean they are radically different.

VD your argument is flawed, admit it. Even as arpg F3 is a mediocre piece of shit compared to Bloodlines/TW.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Fallout 3 is positioned as a sequel, both games share the same universe, have quests, have dialogues, have nearly similar character system (though in F3 it is SPECIAL in name only), share lore..

In before "it's not the same lore, universe, and it's not a sequel".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fallout 3 is positioned as a sequel, both games share the same universe, have quests, have dialogues, have nearly similar character system (though in F3 it is SPECIAL in name only), share lore.

So did Tactics, which was even turn-based and isometric. Of course, Tactics wasn't a sequel, but let's say it was, for argument's sake. Then what? Should we accept it as a sequel and dutifully compare to the first two games? Or realize that it's a different genre and compare to the games of that genre?

Trashing Fallout 3 because it's a "sequel" it was never meant to be sounds kinda silly. Sounds like all you needed was an excuse to trash.

So I don't see any reason why anyone can't compare F3 to F1/2 or any other RPG for that matter.

Because it's pointless and predictable. Anyway, I made quite a few comparisons in my review. Not because I think they were necessary but to clear things up for people who may have naively expected a true sequel.

VD your argument is flawed, admit it. Even as arpg F3 is a mediocre piece of shit compared to Bloodlines/TW.

Arguments?

 

[MetalCraze]

Fallout 3 is positioned as a sequel, both games share the same universe, have quests, have dialogues, have nearly similar character system (though in F3 it is SPECIAL in name only), share lore.

So did Tactics, which was even turn-based and isometric. Of course, Tactics wasn't a sequel, but let's say it was, for argument's sake. Then what? Should we accept it as a sequel and dutifully compare to the first two games? Or realize that it's a different genre and compare to the games of that genre?

Why not? Why can't I compare FO:Tactics quests and dialogues to F1/2? But I can. And they are worse in FO:T. The same with lore. They share it - why can't I compare how games handled it?

Trashing Fallout 3 because it's a "sequel" it was never meant to be sounds kinda silly. Sounds like all you needed was an excuse to trash.

Or somebody is throwing strawman perhaps? We were talking about the reasons why you can't or can compare FO3 to other RPGs incl F1/2 (as I've said in that part of argument you've quoted below). We can't compare combat yes, because combat is the only thing that is radically different in FO3 and F1/2 (and other crpgs). But everything else is similar. And it's worse in F3.
And I'm not trashing F3 only because it is a shitty sequel, but because it is a shitty arpg.

Because it's pointless and predictable.

Yes because F3 is worse than above-average to good RPGs, and not only F1/2

VD your argument is flawed, admit it. Even as arpg F3 is a mediocre piece of shit compared to Bloodlines/TW.

Arguments?

Bloodlines/TW have better writing, better story, better dialogues (do I need to say why?). Bloodlines has well thought-out character system (whereas in FO3 you will make a killer character anyway) and quest design is much better than the one in FO3 - as mostly it isn't about kill kill kill - like nearly every quest in FO3. And both TW and Bloodlines quests have meaningful C&C with really noticeable outcomes and even punish players for choices in a good way - like locking one way of completion and opening the other one instead. More?

 

[Hazelnut]

You have been proven "wrong" with most of you assertions apart from the int/40 SP one, Mr. East West Coast Encumbrance Man

Yeah, VD should fire his proofreader/editor!

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!

Actually, no, VD should fucking shoot his editor!! IN THE FACE!

Seriously guys, stop ragging on VD for this trivial shit. He made the mistakes in the draft, but I missed them when he trusted me to catch shit like this - so these are at my door! Rag on me about these mistakes if you really need to. (yeah I'm the Andy dude referenced at the end)

Obviously the content is VD's and he's more than capable of defending his views and opinions. (I agree with most of them, not all)

Good and honest review. VD has drastically improved his writing skills since his last review.

Well, at least this makes me feel a bit better about my work. Thanks Tales, glad to see it made a difference.

 

[elander_]

Why not? Why can't I compare FO:Tactics quests and dialogues to F1/2? But I can. And they are worse in FO:T. The same with lore. They share it - why can't I compare how games handled it?

FO:T doesn't have dialog. It's the biggest treason Interplay did to their fans when they made it. There's no quests either in general sense of what one would consider a crpg quest. You have missions. Once you finish a batch a missions you get a new batch and so on in a linear succession of missions until the end. FO:T TB combat system makes Fallout TB look like crap, but still Fallout is a crpg and FO:T is only tactical TB combat game.

And both TW and Bloodlines quests have meaningful C&C with really noticeable outcomes and even punish players for choices in a good way - like locking one way of completion and opening the other one instead.

I don't recall many quests in Bloodlines or even Fallout that worked this way, locking some paths and giving alternative ones. You can do all quests in Fallout as long as you satisfy the minimum skill requirements.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why not? Why can't I compare FO:Tactics quests and dialogues to F1/2? But I can. And they are worse in FO:T.

Really? No way! See, that's why you shouldn't compare them - the results are obvious. It's like a food critic writing a lengthy comparison of filet mignon to burgers.

Or somebody is throwing strawman perhaps? We were talking about the reasons why you can't or can compare FO3 to other RPGs incl F1/2 (as I've said in that part of argument you've quoted below). We can't compare combat yes, because combat is the only thing that is radically different in FO3 and F1/2 (and other crpgs). But everything else is similar. And it's worse in F3.

The only thing? So, you see no difference between sandbox RPGs and "hardcore" RPGs like Fallout?

 

[MetalCraze]

...

You still can compare the games though - their similar elements in particular. Dialogues? FO:T has them linear - therefore worse than in original games. Quests/missions - not much differense - you still get them from BoS - in one location, instead of many like in original games. Yes their design was made with tactical strategy in mind, but still they have no such variety and non-linearity like the ones in original games. Combat? You've compared it yourself. Now you can compare character system and lore much more easily.

I realize though that it was yet another VD's strawman thrown in to derail the discussion, because FO:T is less similar to F1/2 than F3, which shares many things with original games except combat (how it shares those things was already written)

The only thing? So, you see no difference between sandbox RPGs and "hardcore" RPGs like Fallout?

Fallout 1/2 are sandbox RPGs. Just because their sandbox requires travel on global map doesn't make them uncomparable to F3.
Anyway your desperate attempts to nitpick aside - I still want to hear why I can't compare Fallout 3's RPG elements to other games including F1/2.

 

[Longshanks]

Is that what I said? Or did I say that comparing games of two different (as in radically different) sub-genres is kinda pointless? And did I not mention in my review that FO3 is a pale imitation comparing to the first two games?

Radically different? Certainly not on all levels. The big differences are combat and big-world exploration.

Both Fallout 3 and the originals attempt quality C&C, branching dialogue trees with plentiful skill checks, multiple ending variations based on choices. Morowind and Oblivion did not attempt these, so keeping the valid comparisons as narrow as TES, Gothic and Assassin's Creed artifically inflates the standing of the game. This is especially so as the elements added to FO3 and not found in M&O are those that you personally value very highly, which is why I can see you rating Fallout 3 as better or equal to Morrowind, despite its much higher failure rate. Given that I see Morrowind as clearly better realised at what it aims for, I'd assume you rate Fallout 3 as its equal or superior largely for things barely attempted by Morrowind (mostly C&C). Isn't this kinda similar to comparing games of different sub-genres?

Taking a cheap shot similar to yours against Skyway - comparing Fallout 3 to a select few games you know not to attempt certain RPG aspects you value highly, seems a reason to ignore flaws and praise the game (I don't actually believe this is why you narrowed your vision, but the condescending comments from you and Twinfalls towards some of those who dislike the game, dismissing them as Beth haters, of using purposely skewed arguments, or comparing FO3 to the originals just so they can trash it are just as unfair).

I agree that as an overall game Fallout 3 needs to be compared to other sandbox RPGs, and maybe other sandbox games. However, there are elements taken directly from the original Fallouts, that are largely separate from this sub-genre. I do not think FO3 is so far removed from fully-fledged RPGs that they can be completey ignored when considering its standing as an RPG or game more generally. It certainly aims to provide many aspects not necesarily usual or even desired in a sandbox RPG (PC personality in dialogue, C&C, definite ending, multiple endings), and at least on these, comparisons to M&O is manifestly inadequate. Just as we need to look to non-sandbox RPGs to rate Fallout 3's gunplay, broadening our comparison to RPGs of other sub-genres when considering the writing, quests and C&C is not unreasonable, particularly when there are so few sandbox RPGs.

I did find it surprising that your review did not mention the weakness of consequences in the game (from memory anyway, if it was mentioned I'm quite sure it was not given the prominence that Ed gave it, and is one area of his review I felt was stronger). Is this because you disagree that FO3 was weak in this aspect, or does it receive a pass on this due to being a sandbox/action/modern RPG?

 

[elander_]

You still can compare the games though - their similar elements in particular.

You could compare Half-Life 2 with Fallout too if you consider that FO:T has dialog. That's not really the point here.

To be more clear, it's useful to compare game components when we know the developers were trying to achieve the same result. We know that FO:T characters aren't there to give you dialog choices, they are just clickable logs. In the same way quests FO:T are missions not crpg quests. Their purpose and intention was different so you shouldn't judge them as you were to judge them on a crpg.

In the same way, it was never Bethesda's intention to copy Fallout game mechanics, but they did tried to add similar features like developed and interesting characters and choices and consequences. Obviously you can judge the quality of those choices by other games that tried to do the same thing. That's why Fallout 3 isn't Fallout in terms of c&c but it isn't an average game in this matter either or at least that's what i believe.

 

[DefJam101]

I wouldn't say Fallout 1 is a sandbox RPG. Fallout 2, definitely.

I'd say the defining characteristic of a 'sandbox RPG' is when the game loses it's sense of direction in favor of choice. It ceases to tell a story, and begins to tell lots of miniature stories. In Fallout 1 you had many options of what quests to take, how to do them, and when, but everything you did was a step towards an overall goal. You rarely hopped off the path to 'do your own thing' because everything you did tied together in some way. This was not the case in Fallout 2, which was--for the most part-- a loose collaboration of somewhat unrelated quest lines.

 

[Punck_D]

This was not the case in Fallout 2, which was--for the most part-- a loose collaboration of somewhat unrelated quest lines.

Definitely. You have some possibilities to find a place in the world beside being the "chosen one". I would call Fallout 2 a bit sandboxy by accident, given the unrelated and unfitting locations like New Reno and Shady Sands.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

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

Good show sir.

However, just because FO3 quest design isn't as good as that of Fallout, doesn't mean it's bad.

True....it's bad because in most cases, it is. I mean, are these really anything but low quality quests?

Agatha's Song: Go dive through a dungeon in downtown DC to find coordinates to another dungeon infested with Mirelurks and Bloatflies all in the name of a glorious fetch quest

Reilly's Rangers: Shoot up a ton of Mutants to get to a hospital with more Mutants, to get to a hotel with more Mutants, and finally go back to Ranger HQ...fighting even more mutants along the way.

Galaxy News Radio: Shoot through a building full of Mutants to get a satellite dish.

Tranquility Lane: Do railroaded evil things to people, or solve a console-ized music puzzle. Screw skills or stats, RPGing is all about throwing stuff ripped out of Donkey Kong Country!

Stealing Independence: Fight through two floors of mutants and a floor of robots to be able to make one speech check against a low-level robot in a grand fetch quest.

The Waters of Life: Shoot up Mutants, then do a bunch of run-around pressing buttons and flipping switches, only to have to fight a bunch of Enclave chumps and Feral Ghouls as you run away.

Finding The Garden of Eden: Dungeon crawl around in Vault 87 and kill more Mutants.

The American Dream: Shoot up the Enclave and have what amounts to a cosmetic dialogue choice at the end.

Oasis: Go through an Oblivion druid ceremony, fight through a dungeon of radcrabs, and do something to an organ depending on which magical item(s) you want. Forget consequences.

Big Trouble in Big Town: Go kill a dungeon full of mutants to save some citizens.

The Nuka Cola Challenge: Find some items that are scattered across dungeons.

The Wasteland Survival Guide: Need I go into detail?

Then the quests go from bad, to decent, with stuff like Megaton, Trouble on the Homefront, Those, Blood Ties, The Superhuman Gambit, and Tenpenny Tower. Still, many of these involve dungeon crawling, but they do usually have skill-checks, and multiple solutions.

Of course "The Replicated Man" and "You Gotta Shoot Em' In The Head" are bloody amazing, but they aren't really indicative of overall quality.

Alternative solutions ARE a good feature no matter how you look at it.

Yes, but poorly done ones add very little, like many of Fallout 3's.

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.

So, Bloodlines did something poorly, but it made up for it, and that makes it excusable. Is that what you're saying? Because if so, then what does Fallout 3 make up for it with?

Breaking it down Fallout 3 has;

-Two superb quests
-A handful of decent quests
-A lot of bad quests
-A broken character system
-Terrible writing
-Badly done story
-Inconsistent atmosphere
-Shallow characters
-Exploration ruined by abundant dungeon crawls
-Poorly done combat
-Pretty graphics

Does this look like a good game? I won't argue that in some places the RPG elements are spot on. But does that matter if it's buried in crap? Does the (this is just a ballpark figure for example's sake) 20% of good counter out the 80% mediocre to awful?

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.

Okay...I don't quite know where you got this idea I never used the rifle just because I felt like using some statistics on the Vault to back up my first argument. Is it just because I didn't find it useful? Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, by the time I had the ability to make the railway rifle, I had better stuff? Isn't it possible that people will find different things at different times in their journey due to the open-world design?

And still, if I'm capable of defeating enemies with ease using a hunting rifle or assault rifle, both weapons in abundant supply, why go out of my way to build something marginally more powerful and much more of a pain in the ass? It's like working if you have a money tree.

Would you compare Tactics to Fallout 1 or Jagged Alliance to determine the overall quality?

Jagged Alliance of course. Very different situation. Tactics was clearly defined, not as a Fallout sequel, but a tactical turn-based combat game. Fallout 3....not so much. I can accept that maybe I'm comparing it a little too much to Fallout of old, but I also think that's a comparison that naturally needs to be made.

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?

So now it's a "sandbox shooter with RPG elements" instead of an action RPG? I think you're moving the goalposts closer and closer to Fallout 3.

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

Not exactly. I said that the categorization of "sandbox RPG" is pretty much a flawed idea, and saying something is a good "sandbox RPG" means very little.

I mean, what is a "sandbox RPG", and what set's it apart from other RPGs? I understand that certain genres have specific sub-genres because each sub-genre has a certain bent off the main genre. Take for instance the FPS genre, and two sub-genres; tactical shooters (think Rainbow Six) and arcade shooters (think Serious Sam and Painkiller). Tactical shooters differentiate themselves by having a more realistic bent, and emphasizing slower, more strategic gameplay. Arcade shooters go for a more fast-paced, visceral, unrealistic approach. As you can see, these two sub-genres are pretty much two opposites to the shooter coin, and you can't really make a tactical arcade shooter and magically get the best of both worlds. They have different objectives that can't both be simultaneously satisfied. Much the same in the RPG genre, with dungeon crawlers versus more story-driven games versus "Fallout-likes". All of those sub-genres have competing objectives. Not so much with the "sandbox RPG", at least in my view. The only thing that seems to be a constant for "sandbox RPGs" is a focus on exploration and a lot of stuff to explore, which is a pretty shallow definition for a sub-genre. I mean, any kind of RPG can have a strong focus on exploration or a large quanity of explorable area. A dungeon-crawler like Baldur's Gate had oodles to explore, as did the story-driven Betrayal at Krondor, and as did Arcanum. Are they now all "sandbox RPGs"?

My point being, creating some sort of sub-genre off of what amounts to one design decision that can be applied to any game of the genre without greatly altering it is kind of silly and "sandbox RPG" has no real meaning, so saying "Fallout 3 is a good sandbox RPG" is equally meaningless.

 

[Tintin]

Seems like your two reviews are just written for different perspectives. VD's review is good for someone who has been following the bitching about Fallout 3 for the past few years. So he just says, "all of that is true, so now let's review it as an action game". But the other persepective is probably better for people who aren't nerds who follow this sort of thing, but liked the original Fallout and are curious about how the "sequel" stacks up.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

The weapon's not easily repaired (unless you "collect junk just in case" according to VD).

Well, if you don't collect junk, why the fuck would you want to build junk-based weapons? This moment is brought to you but the Duh! Foundation.

It's one of the reasons Edward used when saying why other weapons were more useful. The Railway Rifle requires you to collect junk (one of the few things which has weight). The others, as I understand it, can be repaired from other weapons you find of the same type which are much more readily available, given a lot of the enemies seem to use them. As Edward said it "doesn't gain the benefit of being easily repaired / resupplied while fighting many gun-toting enemies".

Yet said himself that he used the Railway Rifle "until I ran out of spikes".

I also ran out of assault rifles ammo quite a few times. And don't even get me started on the magnum! What a rip!!!

Which again illustrates that ammo availability seems to come into play quite significantly. If you have one weapon with lots of ammo you get from dead Raiders versus one that requires a bit more scavenging and hunting, it would appear the weapon with more ammo will be used more often. Mind you, it would mean more if ammo actually weighed something.

Plenty of people here said that the mine is a very powerful weapon

Are Edward's AI concerns misplaced then? He says he tried to use the weapon but "could never get mines to work properly as enemies would step over them, but not set them off".

I'd also like to know what people think of the other two weapons Edward raised. The Rock-It Launcher which appears to be the only weapon in the game whose ammo has weight (seemingly rendering it pretty useless) and the Nuka-Grenade which Edward says required a semi-rare ingredient and by the time you got it, there were better weapons available.

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.

Adequately? He admitted that he assumed one thing and checked wiki (which happened to be incomplete) for the other, making an incorrect assumption.

I agree with you there. If Edward didn't check his information correctly than he deserves to be chastised for it. However, I believe he made that statement based on a certain amount of experience. As I said, he certainly claims to have used the bottlecap mine but gave up because of the AI issues. He tried the Railway Rifle but had issues re-supplying it (presumably because he wasn't hoarding enough junk or because he was firing all the junk with the Rock-It Launcher). And he ended with the statement "Still, are any of these worlds better than the nice weaponry you can have by the time you've completed the mid-level quests to get the schematics?" which lead you to go on and rave about the Railway Rifle is before being confused about how good it is.

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".

Lesson of the day: discover the difference between "the best" and "one of the top 5" and report to me for the next task.

The "best weapon evar" is hyperbole you came up with (4th paragraph down) after you'd been raving about how awesome the Railway Rifle was. I listed 7 weapons which Edward said he found better. That was when you decided to back peddle into "well, okay, so there are better weapons".

However, even if you disagree with me and think that it's not a top 5 weapon, there is no fucking way this weapon can be called useless, and that's what my point was.

Again, one of the points Edward raised was that by the time you got it, there were other weapons which were more useful given they didn't require extra hoops to jump through to obtain, were more readily available and easily re-supplied in large fire-fights. I don't see anything wrong with his opinion.

I note you've conveniently ignored justifying the weaknesses of the Rock-It Launcher, Nuka-Grenade and bottlecap mine.

I haven't tried them and unlike some people I prefer not to discuss things I know nothing about.

And yet here you are saying all the schematic weapons are not useless (which is ultimately what Edward inferred), based on your experience with a single weapon (the Railway Rifle) and using other people's experience with the Bottlecap Mine.

One more time. What I criticized before, I criticized in my review. With the same sarcasm. It's clear to everyone but you. Well, to be honest, I'm sure that it's clear to you but you like typing FLIP-FLOP a lot, so...

"Overall, it's too negative". Vault Dweller, page 1 and you derided him for making what you called an "ESF argument" because he dared to compare Fallout 3 ("an action game" lulz) to another action-RPG, Bloodlines.

Apparently people aren't allowed to be critical of Fallout 3 for things other than what Vault Dweller criticised.

[*]Fallout 3 shouldn't be compared to the other RPGs in the series because "It's an action game!".

Isn't it?

FLIP-FLOP again VD. Apparently Bethesda have made several advances in the role-playing department only to come up with an action game. Funny. Edward said the same thing and you had a go at him about it. "So, uh, is it Oblivion with guns or not? Did Bethesda improve the formula by bringing in loads of skill checks and greatly improving quest design (from uber linear "kill it/fetch it" to multi-side, multi-option, multi-color design)?"

[*]Setting and other faults can be excused because it's "better than Morrowind", a game widely criticised in the forums here.

Widely? Just how widely, if you don't mind me asking? Widely enough to be voted a must-play game by 3 out of 4 admins?

You weren't around then so I can excuse for not reading the forums. Oh no wait, you've even derided Morrowind yourself elsewhere.

FLIP-FLOP.

[*]How dare Edward criticise this action game for its RPG elements?

Is that what I said?

It seems to be what you're inferring. He had a go at Fallout 3's attempts at bringing in choice and consequence and you couldn't hold back to defend this "action game".

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

So in your mind there is no difference between different sub-genres and Fallout, Wizardry 8, and Daggerfall should be measured with one ruler? Fascinating.

We're an RPG site. We judge games on their RPG merits. Excluding games or only including a select list just to make a game look better is absurd and you know it.

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

Was it a critical Codex review? No. Was even worthy of being called "RPG Codex review"? No. Moving on.

Oh, because we all know only you can write the proper Fallout 3 review. Funny then, that your own review even agreed with Chefe's on a lot of aspects. Edward comes out firing though and golly-gosh, he has to be put right!

Yep. These 3 admins were practically forced to pick Morrowind.

Well, what can I say? One of those admins was Rex.

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.

Really? No way. An RPG's several flaws were derided through-out these forums? Like anyone would believe THAT!

FLIP-FLOP. VD, in the same very reply: "Widely? Just how widely [was Morrowind derided in these forums], if you don't mind me asking? Widely enough to be voted a must-play game by 3 out of 4 admins?"

I mean, do you know how widely Morrowind was criticised or not? How about you choose just one position and stick with it. Even just within the one post would be an improvement over the flapping about you've been doing so far.

"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, it's not "one minute it's a top 5, another minute it's not useless". It was in the same fucking sentence, clearly explained.

Vault Dweller, Page 1: "It's fucking awesome [..] One of the top 5 weapons, I think".

Vault Dweller, Page 3: "Did I claim it's the best weapon evar? I said it's not useless".

No. Again, you said it's one of your top five, meaning quite clearly that it is one of the best weapons EVAR!! (Which again, was hyperbole you came up with after I re-listed the 7 weapons Edward said were available at the same time and which were more useful for various reasons than the Railway Rifle). Apparently it slipped out of your top 5 I guess.

As for the ammo comment, I ran out of ammo many times during the game. I used the Chinese Rifle the most and I ran out of ammo at least 4-5 times. Yet it's probably the best gun in the game.

Wow. The Chinese Rifle, a weapon which is widely available and Edward said was more useful than the Railway Rifle, is probably the best gun in the game? The weapon which you so happily said "Look at the stats! LULZ the Railway Rifle does so much more damage!!" (Vault Dweller, Page 3).

Did I say that the chinese rifle sucked?

You inferred as much. You put the Railway Rifle up against it and even compared the stats by highlighting the crit damage and stated "Crit % Multiplier: 3 (that's 3 times higher than the shotgun or the assault rifle)". You certainly weren't suggesting the Chinese Assault Rifle was the better choice.

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.

Daggerfall not good enough then?

I love how you disown your own comments. What, I said that? No.. I uhhh.. Meant something else...

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!

Well, if I addressed both points in my review, then what flip-flopping are we talking about?

The criticism you raised because Edward compared Fallout to its predecessors. In this thread, page 1:

Edward: Working with Paradise Falls didn't seem to stop me from helping some escaped slaves in another quest...

VD: How many games would actually handle this differently? Are we comparing Fallout 3 to imaginary standards or actual games?

Edward: Fallout 2 in a way (NOTE: an "actual game") [...] ...doesn't mean we shouldn't hold Fallout 3 to higher standards, especially when Fallout was one of the series that did it before.

VD: It's an action game. Comparing it to Fallout is as silly as comparing Bloodlines to Arcanum.

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.

Yes, imaginary problems are the hardest to deal with. Even crystal clear facts like that video and the stat overview aren't good enough, eh?

Edward raised perfectly valid complaints about the weapons based on his own experiences and used them in his review. You took it upon yourself to criticise him for Comparing Fallout 3 to its predecessors because it's an "action game", even though you made the comparison yourself, then pointed out that the Railway Rifle was "one of the top 5" and "far from useless", before turning around and saying the Chinese Assault Rifle is "the best weapon", even though Edward used the Assault Rifle as an example as to why you wouldn't bother with the Railway Rifle.

Edward R Murrow, Page 2: "I mean, if the railway rifle is top 5, just pick up a chinese assault rifle, sniper rifle or a scoped magnum (all with damage potentials over 35) and prepare to be amazed"

Gosh, don't you just hate double standards.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Christ. I go away for a few days and this place turns into BEDLAM! Can't we all just get along?

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Christ. I go away for a few days and this place turns into BEDLAM! Can't we all just get along?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Christ. I go away for a few days and this place turns into BEDLAM! Can't we all just get along?

Go fuck yourself.

Now, now Andyman. Is that any way to talk to your Superior? Be a good boy now.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

It's pretty weird that Fallout 3 should raise such hot debates here, among RPG purists, whereas casual gamers will soon forget it.

I urge you to imitate them for once. You should drop it. Whether average, or below average, Fallout 3 is still not worth throwing so much shit.