Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[WhiskeyWolf]

Fallout 3 is still not worth throwing so much shit

Incoming Shit! Duck and Cover!

 

[Claw]

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.

What, ten caps? I would've expected that you need at least fifty.

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.

Well, the flaw in Edward's argument seems to be that he assumes none of those weapons are in VD's top 5. In fact, it sounds like he thinks VD never tried them.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

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.

Well, the flaw in Edward's argument seems to be that he assumes none of those weapons are in VD's top 5. In fact, it sounds like he thinks VD never tried them.

Have the full quote:

It's fucking awesome. I used it until I ran out of spikes. One of the top 5 weapons, I think.

Not even close. The reason it's effective isn't because it's amazing...it's because the game is piss easy. The railway rifle has a max damage potential of 30 and I'm pretty sure it can't be repaired and the ammo is limited, whereas many more weapons have a much greater amount of power, and are easily repaired and fed with ammunition. 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. And they aren't even on the level of brokenness that is the combat shotgun, Lincoln's Repeater, or a plasma rifle. And I haven't even mentioned the "+1" weapons, the Fatman, or the Alien Blaster all of which make an already easy game into a joke.

... and later:

schematic weaponry just wasn't worth it with all the much better alternatives easily available.

... and from Shannow:

Built a 100% Railway Rifle. Used it for two enemies and put it away since it wasn't as good as smuggler's end (1), laser rifle (2), eugene (3), combat shotgun (4), sniper rifle (5), plasma rifle (6) or the special smg (7).

Edward's position, as I read it, isn't that you can't kill anything with the Railway Rifle (why, I'm even pretty sure you can find a video of someone killing stuff with their fists in FO3 - OMG fists aren't useless!). It's that:

• Ammo is not as readily available as other weapons;
• It is not as easily repaired as other weapons;
• Other weapons which do better damage are more easily available.

Rendering it "useless" not by the fact that it doesn't kill but by the fact that if you have it, there's a better weapon you could be using which would kill stuff even easier and wouldn't run out of ammo as easily and would be more easily repaired.

Hmmm... Might explain why VD had such a hard time killing things in his game where-as Edward found combat was a breeze.

 

[Twinfalls]

Oh for goodness sakes, DU, what's gotten into you lately? You can harp on in a pedantic fashion about VD's choice of words, but the simple fact is this: the schematics are not 'radically useless'. This is what Murrow said, and this statement is incorrect. I have pointed out already how very (actually extremely) useful the shish-kebab and the bottlecap mines are. You might find this out yourself if you just played the goddam game for a bit.

The criticism of Murrow's piece put forward are reasonable and calmly justified by VD, there is no vitriolic attack to be seen. As I said before, EM's piece is a single-minded screed littered with errors. Your incessant attempts at one-upmanship are plainly and starkly driven by some kind of bizarro urge to compete with VD.

Give it a rest.

 

[Fat Dragon]

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.

What, ten caps? I would've expected that you need at least fifty.

Perhaps, but like I said to have enough to actually last you for more than one fight you're going to need to make a good number of them, which can cost a few hundred caps to do. A few hundred caps that could be used for other things, such as buying new equipment or supplies. If you have low Repair then you'll need to rely on others to fix your equipment and the price for that can be anywhere between 5-500 caps depending on the condition and weapon type.

 

[elander_]

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?

What if those 80% you consider mediocre to awful are your average quests when you look at all crpgs that have been made to date and that compare with the scope of Fallout 3? Then we can say based on a statistical argument that Fallout 3 is an above average game. You are arguing on a personal opinion base. Fallout 3 is a mediocre game because in your personal opinion you don't like 80% of it's quests.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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)

It's not a strawman, it's an analogy.

Fallout 1/2 are sandbox RPGs.

I disagree, but since I have Edwards and Darkie's posts to deal with, I won't be able to entertain you with a lengthy explanation.

Free travel doesn't make it a sandbox game. A single feature can't define a sub-genre. Take Icewind Dale, for example. The locations are unlocked one after another, but let's say we fuck with the files and unlock them all. Does the game magically become a sandbox game? If the answer is yes, god bless you. If the answer is no, there you go.

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.

You can. It's a free country, aint it? Let's use BG2 and IWD2 as an example. You can compare the two to explain why IWD2 is a different game and why someone who wants to play a game similar to BG2 shouldn't expect the same gameplay from IWD2. You shouldn't, however, compare them to decide which game is better because they are two different games, designed with different goals in mind.

That's why I disagree when people trash Fallout 3 because it wasn't as good as the games it has nothing in common with. It should be judged as a sandbox game and compared to other sandbox games because that's what it fucking is. That's my point.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Take Icewind Dale, for example. The locations are unlocked one after another, but let's say we fuck with the files and unlock them all. Does the game magically become a sandbox game?

Wow, now this is a flawed argument at its best. You might as well say that you don't have to collect keycards in Doom, because you can just type in 'idkfa'.

 

[elander_]

Wow, now this is a flawed argument at its best. You might as well say that you don't have to collect keycards in Doom, because you can just type in 'idkfa'.

I think the point here is what would happen if we give the player full access to every location in IWD2 and then let him play the game this way.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Take Icewind Dale, for example. The locations are unlocked one after another, but let's say we fuck with the files and unlock them all. Does the game magically become a sandbox game?

Wow, now this is a flawed argument at its best. You might as well say that you don't have to collect keycards in Doom, because you can just type in 'idkfa'.

Way to miss the point.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Take Icewind Dale, for example. The locations are unlocked one after another, but let's say we fuck with the files and unlock them all. Does the game magically become a sandbox game?

Wow, now this is a flawed argument at its best. You might as well say that you don't have to collect keycards in Doom, because you can just type in 'idkfa'.

Way to miss the point.

Not quite. By 'unlocking everything' you mess with the way the game was meant to be played by the developers, and thus, the argument is misinformed, so you just skip part 1 of the main quest and go straight to let's say part 5, just like in Doom you type in idkfa and avoid going through an area swarming with monsters (part 1) and instanly open the door leading to the Cyberdemon (part 2).

But, let's ignore this, and address your point - no, it wouldn't make it a sandbox game, because each of the areas in IWD is tied to the plot, there are no 'optional' areas. You go to the Dragon's Eye to get the Heartgem (or however it was called it English). You go to the tombs to find out if they are the source of the evil. You go to the Seldarine fortress to use the Heartgem. While in FO2 you can go straight to the NCR or New Reno when you leave the temple of trials, because there's no impact on the story out there.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Both Fallout 3 and the originals attempt quality C&C, branching dialogue trees with plentiful skill checks, multiple ending variations based on choices.

Only in Fallout 1 that's the main course and in Fallout 3 that's an exotic side dish, something to do between clearing up dungeons. It's clearly not the focus of the game.

Morowind and Oblivion did not attempt these...

Morrowind did to some degree. The game had a few hidden Speechcraft checks, some choices and consequences (the Code book quest that can close a lot of content for you), etc. Should it too be compared to Fallout to determine how good Morrowind is?

... so keeping the valid comparisons as narrow as TES, Gothic and Assassin's Creed artifically inflates the standing of the game.

Comparing a sandbox game to other sandbox games is the only correct and unbiased way to judge it.

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.

In what ways?

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?

Interesting argument, but I'd have to say no. Choices and options are probably the main reason why I rate Fallout 3 as good or better than Morrowind, but that doesn't mean that I'm comparing it to games of other sub-genres. I think that every game, even Diablo, can benefit from choices & consequences, good dialogues, tactical combat. Adding these features won't change the core of the game or what the game is, but it would make it better because dialogues are always better than one liners, options are always better than a predefined path, and consequences always add weight to your choices. Boyarsky is beefing up Diablo 3 dialogues, which would improve the game, but won't change its genre.

IWD2 and ToEE were nothing but dungeon crawlers, but skill checks and options made these games a lot more entertaining and enjoyable.

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.

Prove it.

Darklands had plenty choices & consequences. Daggerfall had at least 6 very different endings and occasional C&C. Can't say they made these games worse.

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?

Disagree that this aspect was weak for a sandbox game. It was neither weak nor strong. Nothing to praise, nothing to criticize.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Not quite. By 'unlocking everything' you mess with the way the game was meant to be played by the developers, and thus, the argument is misinformed...

I doubt that "misinformed" would apply here, but anyway...

While in FO2 you can go straight to the NCR or New Reno when you leave the temple of trials, because there's no impact on the story out there.

I think you are confusing non-linearity + optional content with sandbox gameplay.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's not a strawman, it's an analogy.

A poor analogy. Because FO:T doesn't even try to have dialogues/quests/char system FO1/2 style. Unlike the discussed game.

Free travel doesn't make it a sandbox game. A single feature can't define a sub-genre. Take Icewind Dale, for example. The locations are unlocked one after another, but let's say we fuck with the files and unlock them all. Does the game magically become a sandbox game? If the answer is yes, god bless you. If the answer is no, there you go.

Way to miss a point.

Anyway FO1/2 are sandbox games. Because you can influence the world, change it with your actions - basically like playing in a real sandbox. In fact FO3 is much less sandboxy than aforementioned game - as in FO1/2 your actions actually mean something instead of "oh 48 hours passed, we forgive you everything"

You can. It's a free country, aint it? Let's use BG2 and IWD2 as an example. You can compare the two to explain why IWD2 is a different game and why someone who wants to play a game similar to BG2 shouldn't expect the same gameplay from IWD2. You shouldn't, however, compare them to decide which game is better because they are two different games, designed with different goals in mind.

Except FO3 was designed to ape FO1/2. Different goals? Everything from FO1/2 is there except done much much worse - what are the differences between games except combat and quality?
And IWD didn't try to ape BG2 to begin with.

That's why I disagree when people trash Fallout 3 because it wasn't as good as the games it has nothing in common with. It should be judged as a sandbox game and compared to other sandbox games because that's what it fucking is. That's my point.

Again you are trying to get away from the questions (why can't I judge the usage of the same lore, of the same styled dialogues and same styled quests? FO3 has these in common with FO1/2 and except lore - with other games)

But what is sandbox in your understanding?

 

[Punck_D]

Anyway FO1/2 are sandbox games. Because you can influence the world, change it with your actions - basically like playing in a real sandbox.

I think this is not the meaning of a sandbox game. Compare Fallout to Morrowind. Well, in Morrowind you can completely ignore the main quest and find your place i.e. through the guilds and families.

In Fallout you have a main quest-related time limit and in Fallout 2 Hakunin will be your dream boy until the Arroyo inhabitans get abducted. After that the game feels actually a bit sandboxy, but as i mentiones before "by accident" because of non-fitting locations like New Reno or NCR, where your main quest doesn't seem to be present.

Exploration is much more important and essential in sandbox-games like TES than in "classic" CRPGs like Fallout 1+2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A poor analogy. Because FO:T doesn't even try to have dialogues/quests/char system FO1/2 style. Unlike the discussed game.

Character system? Really? Anyway, FO3 didn't even try to do a lot of things* that Fallout did. According to you, that's enough to dismiss it as a "proper sequel".

*
Fallout 1&2 is focused on exploring different post-war societies via dialogues & quests. Random combat plays a minor role. It's very easy to play the first game without killing anything (it's almost like an adventure game), and it's easy to play the second game with minimum violence.

Fallout 3 is focused on killing things & looting "dungeons". That's what the game is about. Post-war *societies* are non-existent. Dialogues & quests play a minor role and easy to avoid, unlike combat which is unavoidable. As you can see, it's almost the opposite of Fallout.

Anyway FO1/2 are sandbox games. Because you can influence the world, change it with your actions - basically like playing in a real sandbox.

In other words, you have no idea what sandbox means.

Except FO3 was designed to ape FO1/2.

Proof? I hope you won't quote Pete "The Father of Lies" Hines.

Different goals? Everything from FO1/2 is there except done much much worse - what are the differences between games except combat and quality?

Everything? You mean it has a character system, combat, quests, and dialogues? Like in 95% of RPGs?

Again you are trying to get away from the questions (why can't I judge the usage of the same lore, of the same styled dialogues and same styled quests? FO3 has these in common with FO1/2 and except lore - with other games)

You can. Go nuts.

But what is sandbox in your understanding?

A sandbox. A huge area without a "real" goal or with a goal you can easily ignore. A game where you can play for days doing "nothing". The focus is on living (just being there and doing whatever you like) in the gameworld and exploring it.

GTA, Assassins Creed, Elder Scrolls, Gothic. Can't you spot the trend and see how different it is from Fallout and Arcanum?

 

[Kingston]

I'm actually eating chips right now while reading this.

Keep on going, guys! VD is totally going Sparta.

 

[Darth Roxor]

A sandbox. A huge area without a "real" goal or with a goal you can easily ignore. A game where you can play for days doing "nothing". The focus is on living (just being there and doing whatever you like) in the gameworld and exploring it.

And how is that different to Fallout 2?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

As I said before, EM's piece is a single-minded screed littered with errors.

Littered with errors? Maybe I was wrong in calling schematic weapons radically useless, and was a little extreme, but I suppose that's a mistake everyone can make.

Feel free to point out some "errors". I mean, I'm sure you will have no problem, seeing as my review is supposedly "littered" with them. Sure, I screwed the pooch on that intelligence skill point formula, but this whole schematic weaponry thing is a little overblown methinks. It's a game where the designers chose to go open-world, and brought with it all the strengths and weaknesses of that design decision. It's hard to balance things, and players may find items are very different rates and find them to be different degrees of usefulness depending on when they get them.

All I'm saying is that I didn't see a benefit worth the time invested finding schematics, collecting junk, and building the weapons. Maybe a Morrowind analogy might work for you? If I'm annihilating every enemy with my Ebony Longsword, is putting in the effort for Goldbrand really worth it?

What if those 80% you consider mediocre to awful are your average quests when you look at all crpgs that have been made to date and that compare with the scope of Fallout 3? Then we can say based on a statistical argument that Fallout 3 is an above average game. You are arguing on a personal opinion base. Fallout 3 is a mediocre game because in your personal opinion you don't like 80% of it's quests.

First off, I feel a lot of the quests in Fallout 3 are pretty much rock bottom as far as quest design goes, and even though that probably puts them with over 50% of RPGs ever released, that's still shameful for a studio like Bethesda and in the present day. It was one thing to have dungeon diving fetch quests back in "the day", but now?

Second off, I'm not sure your argument is all that valid. You're saying that,

-Fallout 3's quests are mechanically better or equivalent to a majority of CRPGs released quests.
-Thus is an above average game.

Your argument neglects two important factors. First off, bare bones quest mechanics don't necessarily indicate a good quest design or good quests. And second, quest design isn't the only factor for a good RPG.

Elaborating on the first point, often times, the "meat" on those bare bones is what counts for quests. Compare the Ghost Farm quest in Fallout 2 to Blood Ties in Fallout 3. At the core, they're almost the same quest. Essentially, the skeletal structure is the same for both. But the way they are fleshed out is very different, and that's the reason I'm sure most people would agree that the Ghost Farm quest is miles ahead. It doesn't suffer from Bethesda's awful writing and tendency to throw a dungeon in everything and is much better as a result.

And on the second point, while quest mechanics are a key feature of CRPGs, they aren't the only one. Even though some of Bethesda's quests are solid at the bare bones, they run into the problem that Bethesda doesn't seem to do very much well. Bethesda inundates their games with dungeon crawls, boring combat, and quests that aren't good. Yeah, judging just off of the bare bone of some of the quests, Fallout 3 is good, if not really good. It's just when you put everything together, the bad outweighs the good by a heavy amount, and I've never been a fan of the "go through a lot of shit to get some fun" game design philosophy especially when there are games that attempt to be fun and good as much possible.

 

[raving nincompoop]

But what is sandbox in your understanding?

A sandbox. A huge area without a "real" goal or with a goal you can easily ignore. A game where you can play for days doing "nothing". The focus is on living (just being there and doing whatever you like) in the gameworld and exploring it.

GTA, Assassins Creed, Elder Scrolls, Gothic. Can't you spot the trend and see how different it is from Fallout and Arcanum?

This is how I precise this:

There is sandbox and there is exploration. There are too different think but one without the other is borderline useless.

Sandbox means, usually, not only go where you please, but also do as you please.

Exploration of the map only (in a sandbox), in by itself, doesn't really give you that much. Exploration is much more then the map, there is character exploration (PS:T), NPC exploration (fallout did that pretty good), NPC vs. character exploration, NPC vs. NPC, player vs. world (faction/diplomacy) (,NPC vs. world ?, world vs. world ??).

Interactivity is the missing link here, you can do as you please in a sandbox, and by doing so you explore. Sandbox presents the opportunity, exploring is the result of materializing that opportunity.

Exploration without sandbox hamper interactivity. A sandbox without exploration – different outcome to different action/choices/decisions/roles – gives the sense of doing a LOT of ... nothing. And I distinctly remember playing morrowind, playing it a lot and getting the feeling I'm not really accomplishing anything.

This is what morrowind (and judging from second handed obtained information, fallout3) suffer from. There is very little to explore. In Fallout you had a LOT to explore: NPC, world (history, current state, forces at play - faction), and so on but in a moderated sandbox experience. In morrowind you had a near perfect sandbox but very little to explorer outside the map. In morrowind you can do a lot but from the game world impact perspective you accomplished very little (other then gaining better stat and gear that is).

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).

 

[Vault Dweller]

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

Compared to what, my good sir? Gothic? The Witcher?

Kill King of the Crypt. Kill the Monster of the Lake. Light 5 fire shrines. Kill 3 drowners and bring their brains. Kill 3 ghouls and brings their blood. Kill evil plants in some guy's garden. Kill the bandits. Kill the Beast (I *really* hoped I would be able to deal with the beast in several different ways). And that's a story driven game, mind you.

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.

How exactly does being able to do things in different ways and get different outcomes add "very little"? Care to explain?

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?

Let's see:

- Side quests range from standard RPG stuff to very good.
- The character system isn't bad and hardly broken. A lot of useful skills.
- The writing ranges from really bad to really good.
- Main quest sucks, I agree
- The atmosphere is inconsistent but pretty damn good overall (kinda like New Reno being inconsistent as fuck but excellent from the role-playing point of view)
- The characters are shallow but acceptable for a sandbox game
- Exploration is pretty good. Dungeon crawling is to be expected. Daggerfall?
- Combat is mediocre but playable
- Pretty graphics.

Does this look like a bad game?

Does the (this is just a ballpark figure for example's sake) 20% of good counter out the 80% mediocre to awful?

It's awfully subjective, that's for sure.

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?

Sounds like creative backpedaling, to be honest. I can push harder, but DU is waiting for his turn, practicing his "FLIP-FLOP!!!" screams in the distance, so I'll let you keep your dignity.

Two points though:

The rifle's parts are everywhere. If you were collecting junk, you'd be able to build a few early (around time you reach the radio station) and repair them into a decent one. You'd also know that the ammo is weightless and common.

About the open ended world and being able to get best stuff first. What would you say to a review criticizing Fallout 2 for having tons of useless guns and armor when it's easy to get power armor and gauss weapons in the beginning?

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.

Why use anything other than the Chinese Assault Rifle at all?

I can accept that maybe I'm comparing it a little too much to Fallout of old...

The first step is the hardest.

So now it's a "sandbox shooter with RPG elements" instead of an action RPG?

Can't be both? Gothic 3 for example is a sandbox game and an action RPG.

I mean, what is a "sandbox RPG", and what set's it apart from other RPGs?

Quite a lot actually. Compare Arcanum to Daggerfall. Notice any differences?

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 don't think you're trying hard enough. Stop sandbagging me.

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.

Except for the sandbox sub-genre being around and well defined for more than 15 years.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm actually eating chips right now while reading this.

Keep on going, guys! VD is totally going Sparta.

Finally! Like the good ol' days.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5326
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5285

Good times.

 

[PlanHex]

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).

I'd say the worst part about Raven Rock is the speech check with the guard right outside your cell. It makes Eden announce to the entire base that they should leave you alone, but is swiftly overridden by some other guy. What the fuck was the point of it? It's like giving someone an ice cream and then pointing a flamethrower in their direction. "HARHAR YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD SKIP THE BORING DUNGEON HACK DIDN'T YOU?!" *fwoosh*

 

[Darth Roxor]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5285

And people are saying that :declineofthecodex: is something fairly recent?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Epic battles are good for the participants' spirit and mental health.