Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[elander_]

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.

Not only mechanically better, but in terms of writing and overall. You have a very optimistic idea of what an average game is considering all crpgs that have been made. Having c&c to the extent of Fallout 3 is more an exception than the norm and it's writing is not that bad in comparison to most mainstream crpgs. For the mainstream player Fallout 3 is a good game.

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.

You must be kidding. There's more than 40 books in Morrowind describing the world politics, religion and history. Morrowind has around 10 factions disputing power between them. If you do the guild quests to the end you get to make some choices in the end and i think the intrigue is quite good. Morrowind has some serious flaws and is very boring at times but it's a great setting and if you do those quests like i said it's very reward to see what happens.

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).

Yes we all would like to have more of this in our games but until we get much better AI this won't happen soon. Fallout which is a reference had quests with great choices but was the impact in the world after doing those quests? You get to see movies at the end of the game describing the consequences to your actions but you don't actually see those changes happening while you play the game.

Some quests change the game scenario but the result is comparable to Morrowind. You free Adyton from the regulators and at the end nothing changes except that some npcs go away and others move places. There are a few dialog lines where npcs thank you for what you did but then they reset to their old dialog. In Morrowind when you defeat Dagoth Uhr the game stops generating sand storms and hostile encounters at the central part of the island. Is not much different except dialogs in Fallout are much better placed and you get more interesting scripted reactions, thanks to Fallout devs great skill in giving the player the illusion of change through well done dialogs.

 

[RainSong]

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?

address to it biach.

 

[Beans00]

The review writer is emo and should slit his wrists and bleed out. negative shit and half of it is wrong as the dweller pointed out.




The review is gamespot quality.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

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

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

The way I see it, when the Codex was founded, it was at the high point. Nobody replied to news posts and only a few of us visited the forums every once in a while to bag Interplay. It's just been downhill ever since.

Mind you, going by the alleged decent of the decline by some, The Codex must have been orbiting Pluto when it was founded.

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.

Gosh, if only we'd reviewed Oblivion as a sandbox game and compared it to the other sandbox games available at the time... "If you loved Morrowind, you'll love Oblivion and don't let anyone compare it to anything else!"

 

[Longshanks]

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.

Agreed. And I see no problem in comparing Fallout 3 overall with other sandbox games. But, much of the above is not all that common in the sub-genre recently, so I feel some comparison to other recent RPGs would be useful, even if including the disclaimer - "being a sandbox RPG...". The same way we'd look to non-sandbox games to judge the game's gunplay. The problem with not doing this is that a sandbox RPG that adds elements that have not been usual in recent times, even if patchily executed, almost becomes a "good" game by default.

This is possibly just a difference in taste, or even opinion of Fallout 3, but I rate a game that knows its limitations and focuses on doing what it does well, higher than one that adds many disparate elements which are poorly realised. The Morrowind - FO3 comparison again.

For me, the attempt at interesting characters, branching dialogue trees, even much of the C&C, actually detracted from the game. True, they were not the major focus, but there was plenty of dialogue, plenty of skill checks, plenty of situations setup for strong consequences, and my dislike for how these were implemented negatively affected my play experience. The game lacked focus, and the disconnect between "we're making a Fallout game" and "but, it needs to be as M&O-like as possible" comes through strongly.

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?

There is a far greater focus on this in FO3.
I'm not saying Fallout 3 should be compared to Fallout, except in that it is presented as a sequel, just as I'd not explicitly compare every RPG to PST's writing. Just my view that certain elements (particularly those not recently common in sandbox games, and given the very small number) could be evaluated with some reference to other recent games.

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?

Defining failure as - things they tried to do, but I feel did poorly:
- main quest
- engaging branching dialogue with interesting characters
- C&C (not so sure they tried for consequences - felt like a Clayton's effort, much like choice in a Bioware game)
- less specifically: theme, believability, use of character system

Whereas, I cannot think of too many areas where Morrowind failed, and consider it a good game, if not one I personally enjoyed. One game did not contain elements required for me to enjoy an RPG, the other had most of them, but just did not do them well enough.

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.

I largely agree, but would have to add that these "universal goods" would need to be well integrated and not detract from the game's main purpose. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think this is the case in Fallout 3, and feel this is where our views diverge. Much like great slabs of dialogue would not have improved Diablo, especially if that dialogue ranged from decent to poor.

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.

When I say "not necessarily usual or desired", I mean that they are not needed to realise the sub-genres main purpose, and that they can be undesirable by shifting the focus away from this purpose - living in the world, doing whatever you like (consequences, PC personality and definite ending particularly). Though, I'm probably focusing too much on M&O here, and their particular brand of sandbox (Darklands and Daggerfall were certainly different), - the "be the character, and do what you want without consequences" philosophy.

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

Fair enough, I even agree with the underlined. However, I do feel the lack of consequence does at least warrant a mention. As you said previously, most games can benefit from quality C&C, and I think it's worth pointing out where the game could have improved in this area . Personally the lack of consequences did affect my play experience, this could be due to it being a Fallout sequel, or my own personal preferences, but the game did seem to hit me over the head with "this game is not about consequences!". It continually setup situations where significant consequences seemed a given, but almost always backed away from them. Megaton bomb quest is the obvious example here. I can accept a low consequence RPG, but teasing me with pretend consequences is just annoying. It seems one of those disconnects between designing as Fallout successor and M&O-like sandbox, they go partly down the FO road but never follow through, I think one or the other, going with FO or M&O-like would have been preferable.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

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

I'll get back to this. Suffice to say, I don't limit myself to "sandbox" games when critiquing. But again, I'll get that later because it's a doozy.

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

But you don't get to do things in different ways, nor get different outcomes in many cases with Fallout 3. Take the Raven Rock example, same outcome and gameplay no matter which skills you use. A science guy feels the same as a speech guy who feels the same as anyone else.

- Side quests range from standard RPG stuff to very good.

Yes, but more stuff falls on the bad side.

- The character system isn't bad and hardly broken. A lot of useful skills.

Jack of all trades syndrome takes over too heavily. It's too easy to be good at everything you need to be. SPECIAL is gutted and matters very little. Most perks are useless and the ones that aren't are kind of broken (in the totally overpowered way), like Intense Training.

- The writing ranges from really bad to really good.

I'd say it ranges more from absolute shit to decent. Where is this, "really good"? Yeah, sure, there were some decent journal entries in the Vaults or strewn about. The problem is, these aren't that hard to write and the writing besides those usually never goes above passable.

- 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)

What? Seriously the words "good" and "atmosphere" together in the context of Fallout 3 shouldn't happen. It's crap and beyond inconsistent.

-This is a wasteland where resources are scarce and any sort of technology from the old world is a treasure to be cherished. Now excuse me while I get a drink from the vending machine, then check a mailbox for some grenades and drugs, and go kill one of the many wandering pre-war robots in this wasteland.

-The wasteland is harsh and there are few survivors. Towns are small settlements of maybe a few families because places aren't safe and there are few resources. But excuse me while I go kill about 400 mutants and 200 raiders. Gee I wonder how these guys survive....it's like they were just there for me to kill them.

-Remember, it's a harsh unforgiving wasteland. Now I'll go help that guy with his election, that guy with his museum, that girl collect soda, those people fight for replicant rights, this girl seduce a priest, and some wacko work on a book. It's like they don't have anything better to do....like you know, fight for survival or be productive?

Point is, the post-apocalyptic atmosphere is almost, but not quite, as shot up as it was by Fallout 2. Half the game tries to be serious and the other half is "lol funneh!". That doesn't quite build a good atmosphere.

- The characters are shallow but acceptable for a sandbox game

And there you go again with that. I'm getting to it.

- Exploration is pretty good. Dungeon crawling is to be expected. Daggerfall?

Yes dungeons are expected. But that doesn't mean they all have to be shit. Bethesda's dungeons are terrible, yet they seem to be under the impression they are wonderful and thus shower the player in them...even when they don't want them (i.e. Raven Rock).

- Combat is mediocre but playable

For simplicities sake, I won't argue that the combat is below mediocre. But I will say that a mediocre combat system that is overused quickly turns sour. And Fallout 3 most certainly overuses it. Plus, what kind of good game has the player engaged mostly in an activity that is only "mediocre"? Seems like games should have people doing what they do best the most, eh? Like Torment with dialogue, and Ninja Gaiden with combat.

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

Well I guess some people have to enjoy tons of boring combat in copy-pasted dungeons with the occasional decent quest or dialogue options.

Sounds like creative backpedaling, to be honest.

More like trying to wrap up discussion on something pretty trivial in the big picture when it comes to the review.

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.

Assuming of course, I had a schematic. Thing is, the only railway rifle schematic I found was the reward for "Stealing Independence", and I didn't do that quest until a bit later.

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?

Yeah....with previous knowledge of the game.

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

And that's kind of a problem with Fallout 3's combat. It should push you to have to use different things. Like in Fallout 1, fighting higher level opponents with only small guns skill can be rather iffy. It helps to have big guns or energy weapons against hardier opposition, like the Brotherhood, super mutants, robots, deathclaws, and the Master. Course Fallout 2 wrecked this with the P90 and gauss weaponry...but that doesn't excuse Fallout 3.

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

You sure? Seems like sandbox is just a buzzword that showed up around when GTA3 came out.

Okay, here comes the hard to argue part. Why I think comparing Fallout 3 to just "sandbox games" is silly. Let's look at your definition.

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.

Alrighty then. While it would be pretty easy to mislabel this as virtua-LARPing, that would be a real dickhead move. So let me get this straight....a sandbox game is...

-Not largely goal oriented
-Focus on renewable gameplay/emergent gameplay
-Being free to do what you want, when you want.

Alright. I might be able to buy it. For example, it explains why Mercenaries is a sandbox shooter, but Halo isn't. The fact that I can fight with whoever I want, whenever I want, for as long as I want, wherever I want, and with just about whatever I want is what makes Mercenaries so sandboxy. Add the fact that gameplay renews itself as enemies and locations respawn and you can call down whatever kind of support you want cements this, especially when compared to Halo's tightly scripted levels that once you're done shooting everything, are pretty much over. It makes sense here. The sandbox nature is mutually exclusive from a tightly scripted shooter like Halo, Half-Life, or Call of Duty. But they both are still valid design decisions, with their own strengths and weaknesses, and it makes sense to not critique one two heavily based on the properties of the other (of course both should be critiqued equally on certain shooter fundamentals...but I'm getting off topic).

RPGs however, are a different beast. Looking at your definition, don't most RPGs sort of fulfill that? I mean, most games don't really have a time limit, so you are free to do as you wish and put off the main goal. You can do the "*nothing*" very easily by doing some side-stuff, like exploring around, fighting stuff, talking to people, or even virtua-LARPing. Same thing with "living" in the world. I mean, the only thing that really seems to separate sandbox RPGs from normal ones in your definition is the focus on it. But what does that really mean? I can't help but feel that there's not much that is "unique" to the sandbox subgenre of RPGs. It just seems like they are watered down other RPGs; you certainly get more, but it's all of a lower quality.

I guess I just don't get what makes it so that any RPG can't just tack on sandbox elements. I mean, Arcanum did, and it was able to stand with the best of them. It had a big open, world with very little limitations. You could ignore the main quest as easily as you could in Fallout 3 or Oblivion. You could wander around questing and finding stuff as in Morrowind/Fallout/Oblivion. And it still was able to have good writing, great quests, an awesome character system, and one of the best settings I've seen. Kind of the same thing with Fallout 2, and Baldur's Gate. I mean, the only thing separating these two from Bethesda sandboxes is that you can't walk through a bunch of empty monster-infested space in real time.

And plus, diving in dungeons, killing stuff, and looting are not very fun renewable open-ended gameplay elements, but that's all games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 bring in terms of sandboxing. Compare to Mercenaries well designed emergent skirmishes, or GTA's massive world interactivity and choices and it pales in comparison.

Again, I don't critique a good dungeon-crawler (like Wizardry) for not having Torment level dialogue because that isn't what it aims to do and it provides me with fun, challenging combat and lots of it. I don't critique Torment for not having amazing combat because that wasn't its goal and I'm in dialogue that is amazing 90% of the play time instead of combat. What does a sandbox game bring, that makes all the flaws they seem to bring worth ignoring? I don't really see what it is, and thus I don't get why I should spare it from a lot of criticism. I'm not asking it to be great at everything, but I am asking it to do something well and make that the focus of the game...which it doesn't.

Not only mechanically better, but in terms of writing and overall. You have a very optimistic idea of what an average game is considering all crpgs that have been made. Having c&c to the extent of Fallout 3 is more an exception than the norm and it's writing is not that bad in comparison to most mainstream crpgs. For the mainstream player Fallout 3 is a good game.

This was a Codex review, we aren't the mainstream.

And to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the "It's better than the average quality...so it's good" argument. If you accept that, it makes for some goofy situations. Take for instance this idea. Most movies made in the world are terrible Bollywood/direct to video/Uwe Boll/Creature Double Feature/Sci Fi Channel/Ed Wood/porn/etc. stuff. Most people wouldn't have a problem accepting Hollywood movies are better than these, so that would put something like Norbit, the new Death Race, or Sex and the City in the top 50, maybe even top 40 percent as far as movies go. Does that mean they are good movies, worth my time and money? No way in hell.

Same thing with games. I prefer higher standards; life's too short to waste time with crap.

Of course, to be fair, Fallout 3 does have some top caliber quest design, it's just that it is too finite, buried in mediocre to bad quests, and absolutely drenched in the rest of the game....which is terrible combat-filled dungeons and awful writing.

The review writer is emo and should slit his wrists and bleed out. negative shit and half of it is wrong as the dweller pointed out.

I'll take this as evidence I was chillingly spot on.

 

[Beans00]

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

I'll get back to this. Suffice to say, I don't limit myself to "sandbox" games when critiquing. But again, I'll get that later because it's a doozy.

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

But you don't get to do things in different ways, nor get different outcomes in many cases with Fallout 3. Take the Raven Rock example, same outcome and gameplay no matter which skills you use. A science guy feels the same as a speech guy who feels the same as anyone else.

- Side quests range from standard RPG stuff to very good.

Yes, but more stuff falls on the bad side.

- The character system isn't bad and hardly broken. A lot of useful skills.

Jack of all trades syndrome takes over too heavily. It's too easy to be good at everything you need to be. SPECIAL is gutted and matters very little. Most perks are useless and the ones that aren't are kind of broken.

- The writing ranges from really bad to really good.

I'd say it ranges more from absolute shit to decent. Where is this, "really good"? Yeah, sure, there were some decent journal entries in the Vaults or strewn about. The problem is, these aren't that hard to write and the writing besides those usually never goes above passable.

- 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)

What? Seriously the words "good" and "atmosphere" together in the context of Fallout 3 shouldn't happen. It's crap and beyond inconsistent.

-This is a wasteland where resources are scarce and any sort of technology from the old world is a treasure to be cherished. Now excuse me while I get a drink from the vending machine, then check a mailbox for some grenades and drugs, and go kill one of the many wandering pre-war robots in this wasteland.

-The wasteland is harsh and there are few survivors. Towns are small settlements of maybe a few families because places aren't safe and there are few resources. But excuse me while I go kill about 400 mutants and 200 raiders. Gee I wonder how these guys survive....it's like they were just there for me to kill them.

-Remember, it's a harsh unforgiving wasteland. Now I'll go help that guy with his election, that guy with his museum, that girl collect soda, those people fight for replicant rights, this girl seduce a priest, and some wacko work on a book. It's like they don't have anything better to do....like you know, fight for survival or be productive?

Point is, the post-apocalyptic atmosphere is almost, but not quite, as shot up as it was by Fallout 2. Half the game tries to be serious and the other half is "lol funneh!". That doesn't quite build a good atmosphere.

- The characters are shallow but acceptable for a sandbox game

And there you go again with that. I'm getting to it.

- Exploration is pretty good. Dungeon crawling is to be expected. Daggerfall?

Yes dungeons are expected. But that doesn't mean they all have to be shit. Bethesda's dungeons are terrible, yet they seem to be under the impression they are wonderful and thus shower the player in them...even when they don't want them (i.e. Raven Rock).

- Combat is mediocre but playable

For simplicities sake, I won't argue that the combat is below mediocre. But I will say that a mediocre combat system that is overused quickly turns sour. And Fallout 3 most certainly overuses it. Plus, what kind of good game has the player engaged mostly in an activity that is only "mediocre"? Seems like games should have people doing what they do best the most, eh? Like Torment with dialogue, and Ninja Gaiden with combat.

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

Well I guess some people have to enjoy tons of boring combat in copy-pasted dungeons with the occasional decent quest or dialogue options.

Sounds like creative backpedaling, to be honest.

More like trying to wrap up discussion on something pretty trivial in the big picture when it comes to the review.

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.

Assuming of course, I had a schematic. Thing is, the only railway rifle schematic I found was the reward for "Stealing Independence", and I didn't do that quest until a bit later.

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?

Yeah....with previous knowledge of the game.

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

And that's kind of a problem with Fallout 3's combat. It should push you to have to use different things. Like in Fallout 1, fighting higher level opponents with only small guns skill can be rather iffy. It helps to have big guns or energy weapons against hardier opposition, like the Brotherhood, super mutants, robots, deathclaws, and the Master. Course Fallout 2 wrecked this with the P90 and gauss weaponry...but that doesn't excuse Fallout 3.

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

You sure? Seems like sandbox is just a buzzword that showed up around when GTA3 came out.

Okay, here comes the hard to argue part. Why I think comparing Fallout 3 to just "sandbox games" is silly. Let's look at your definition.

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.

Alrighty then. While it would be pretty easy to mislabel this as virtua-LARPing, that would be a real dickhead move. So let me get this straight....a sandbox game is...

-Not largely goal oriented
-Focus on renewable gameplay/emergent gameplay
-Being free to do what you want, when you want.

Alright. I might be able to buy it. For example, it explains why Mercenaries is a sandbox shooter, but Halo isn't. The fact that I can fight with whoever I want, whenever I want, for as long as I want, wherever I want, and with just about whatever I want is what makes Mercenaries so sandboxy. Add the fact that gameplay renews itself as enemies and locations respawn and you can call down whatever kind of support you want cements this, especially when compared to Halo's tightly scripted levels that once you're done shooting everything, are pretty much over. It makes sense here. The sandbox nature is mutually exclusive from a tightly scripted shooter like Halo, Half-Life, or Call of Duty. But they both are still valid design decisions, with their own strengths and weaknesses, and it makes sense to not critique one two heavily based on the properties of the other (of course both should be critiqued equally on certain shooter fundamentals...but I'm getting off topic).

RPGs however, are a different beast. Looking at your definition, don't most RPGs sort of fulfill that? I mean, most games don't really have a time limit, so you are free to do as you wish and put off the main goal. You can do the "*nothing*" very easily by doing some side-stuff, like exploring around, fighting stuff, talking to people, or even virtua-LARPing. Same thing with "living" in the world. I mean, the only thing that really seems to separate sandbox RPGs from normal ones in your definition is the focus on it. But what does that really mean? I can't help but feel that there's not much that is "unique" to the sandbox subgenre of RPGs. It just seems like they are watered down other RPGs; you certainly get more, but it's all of a lower quality.

I guess I just don't get what makes it so that any RPG can't just tack on sandbox elements. I mean, Arcanum did, and it was able to stand with the best of them. It had a big open, world with very little limitations. You could ignore the main quest as easily as you could in Fallout 3 or Oblivion. You could wander around questing and finding stuff as in Morrowind/Fallout/Oblivion. And it still was able to have good writing, great quests, an awesome character system, and one of the best settings I've seen. Kind of the same thing with Fallout 2, and Baldur's Gate. I mean, the only thing separating these two from Bethesda sandboxes is that you can't walk through a bunch of empty monster-infested space in real time.

And plus, diving in dungeons, killing stuff, and looting are not very fun renewable open-ended gameplay elements, but that's all games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 bring in terms of sandboxing. Compare to Mercenaries well designed emergent skirmishes, or GTA's massive world interactivity and choices and it pales in comparison.

Again, I don't critique a good dungeon-crawler (like Wizardry) for not having Torment level dialogue because that isn't what it aims to do and it provides me with fun, challenging combat and lots of it. I don't critique Torment for not having amazing combat because that wasn't its goal and I'm in dialogue that is amazing 90% of the play time instead of combat. What does a sandbox game bring, that makes all the flaws they seem to bring worth ignoring? I don't really see what it is, and thus I don't get why I should spare it from a lot of criticism. I'm not asking it to be great at everything, but I am asking it to do something well and make that the focus of the game...which it doesn't.

Not only mechanically better, but in terms of writing and overall. You have a very optimistic idea of what an average game is considering all crpgs that have been made. Having c&c to the extent of Fallout 3 is more an exception than the norm and it's writing is not that bad in comparison to most mainstream crpgs. For the mainstream player Fallout 3 is a good game.

This was a Codex review, we aren't the mainstream.

And to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the "It's better than the average quality...so it's good" argument. If you accept that, it makes for some goofy situations. Take for instance this idea. Most movies made in the world are terrible Bollywood/direct to video/Uwe Boll/Creature Double Feature/Sci Fi Channel/Ed Wood/porn/etc. stuff. Most people wouldn't have a problem accepting Hollywood movies are better than these, so that would put something like Norbit, the new Death Race, or Sex and the City in the top 50, maybe even top 40 percent as far as movies go. Does that mean they are good movies, worth my time and money? No way in hell.

Same thing with games. I prefer higher standards; life's too short to waste time with crap.

Of course, to be fair, Fallout 3 does have some top caliber quest design, it's just that it is too finite, buried in mediocre to bad quests, and absolutely drenched in the rest of the game....which is terrible combat-filled dungeons and awful writing.

The review writer is emo and should slit his wrists and bleed out. negative shit and half of it is wrong as the dweller pointed out.

I'll take this as evidence I was chillingly spot on.

Your trying to hard bitch.


your also gay

 

[Vault Dweller]

As Edward said it "doesn't gain the benefit of being easily repaired / resupplied while fighting many gun-toting enemies".

That's assuming that you're fighting enemies armed with the same weapons you are using, which, as anyone who played the game can tell you, doesn't happen often. One of the reasons I switched to the low-clip hunting rifle was because all my weapons needed repair, but all I was getting were the hunting rifles.

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.

Very true. Which is where the infamous railway rifle comes in.

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".

No idea. Never used them, but as you can see from my quotes, quite a few people, including youtubers, are enjoying them.

If I was a lesser person, I would assume that our mutual friend Edward sucketh at using mines correctly, but since I'm a gentleman, I'll give him the benefits of the doubt.

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.

The semi-rare ingredient is everywhere too. In fact I found one or two in that super mart place (one of the first few locations you may visit).

I agree with you there.

*holding back tears* And I... I ... agree with you too.

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".

So, "fucking awesome" actually means the best? I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I may have also erroneously referred to the .223 pistol as fucking awesome in the past. I request to strike it from the court records.

No. Again, you said it's one of your top five, meaning quite clearly that it is one of the best weapons EVAR!!

...

...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"...

:facepalm:

Let's use an analogy. I'm one of top 5 posters here (talking about post count), but kingcomrade is #1. There is no contradiction. The entire "one of top x" concept implies that it's not the best, not #1. Nobody says this is the best student in the class and also one of the top 5 students in the class. Duh!

Hopefully we are done with the "but first you said one of the top 5 and then you said it's not the best and now I'm confused" shit.

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.

This doesn't make any fucking sense. Are we done with "the top 5" business or you haven't embarrassed yourself enough yet?

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.

Except for it's loaded with false assumptions I pointed many times in this thread:

- easy to find and build, which requires only clicking on the workstation inside a store.
- by the time you can build it, you have 200-300 ammo, which guarantees you at least 150-200 dead bodies
- insane critical hit % - a point you've managed to dodge several times so far
- easy to build spares and thus repair, which means that you don't depend on the game supplying you with enough spares.

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.

Assumption, your honor. I'm just not a mine/grenade kinda guy. I made a dart gun (will cripple a fucking train) and the flaming sword. Both weapons met my satisfaction, but I liked the railway rifle more.

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.

Either it's time to get new glasses or to dump more points into reading comprehension. I "derided" him NOT for comparing the game to Bloodlines, but for saying - "my character was killing tons of stuff and wrecking house" in Bloodlines, why can't I do it in FO3!!! I even underlined it when I posted it to make it more, uh, user-friendly.

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

Do you agree with that particular criticism? About not being able to "kill tons of stuff" in Fallout 3. Let's get you on record. Speak clearly and into the microphone, please.

FLIP-FLOP again VD. Apparently Bethesda have made several advances in the role-playing department only to come up with an action game.

So did the Gothic people. You may want to read my Gothic 3 review when you have a chance.

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)?"

And? Are you saying that an action RPG can't have great quest design and skill checks? Why?

[*]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.

Jesus! Are you not well? Or that desperate to prove me wrong somehow? What you are posting doesn't make any sense. In that linked thread I said "Anyone who followed Morrowind/Oblivion development knows that Bethesda did lie deliberately...". Where do you see a word about MW's qualities?

For the record, I did criticize Morrowind, but then again I criticized plenty of games including Arcanum, which I think is probably the best RPG ever created. My point above was about you using lame, making-no-sense quotes to back up your making-no-sense arguments.

It seems to be what you're inferring...
...
You inferred as much....

Into mind-reading now, aren't we?

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.

And how would you approach reviewing Sacred 2 or Diablo 3 then? Or Silent Storm? Enlighten me please on Silent Storm's RPG merits, oh wise one.

Oh, because we all know only you can write the proper Fallout 3 review.

Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as good as Saint, Spazmo, or Section8. I'm well aware of my limitations.

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!

I criticized Chefe's review too, in case you are implying that I attacked Ed's review because it was critical.

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.

You are confusing two different things again: criticizing flaws (which applies to pretty much every game, hence my sarcastic remark above) and deriding a game. How very ESF of you.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Wow. It's like Never Ending Story, except not as amusing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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?

address to it biach.

Figure it out.

Gosh, if only we'd reviewed Oblivion as a sandbox game ...

That's exactly how I reviewed it.

"If you loved Morrowind, you'll love Oblivion and don't let anyone compare it to anything else!"

Did you not notice that most Morrowind fans and top modders disliked/hated Oblivion? Including Frankie, the self-proclaimed #1 (don't confuse with "top 5") Bethesda fan.

Edit: Longshanks, Edward, I'll reply to your posts tomorrow.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

As Edward said it "doesn't gain the benefit of being easily repaired / resupplied while fighting many gun-toting enemies".

That's assuming that you're fighting enemies armed with the same weapons you are using, which, as anyone who played the game can tell you, doesn't happen often. One of the reasons I switched to the low-clip hunting rifle was because all my weapons needed repair, but all I was getting were the hunting rifles.

Once again you're trying to have it both ways. When it suits your argument, you claim that "ammo was never a problem" and there are "plenty of spare parts around the place" (ingredients Edward says are "semi-rare" you say are "everywhere") and yet then turn around and say exactly the opposite and ultimately agree with the points Edward made. Ammo is scarce. Other weapons have better ammo availability. Other weapons can be repaired more easily. Other weapons do better damage.

Once again, Edward didn't say the Railway Rifle and other schematic weapons were useless because you couldn't kill anything with them. He said they were useless because the game was piss-easy and there were better weapons available (better for ways including damage and for ways other than just damage).

Clearly that's the opinion he had and so far, you keep agreeing with him when it suits you and FLIP-FLOPing when it doesn't. You obviously had a very different experience with Fallout 3 than Edward did. Especially given the fact in your own review, you talk about how difficult the combat in Fallout 3 is ("the combat is challenging, dying is easy") while Edward talks about how easy it was ("combat was already a breeze").

Is it so hard to accept that Edward, from his own perspective and for reasons which he's justified, found the schematic weapons useless because of this? Or do you just have to insist he's wrong and you're right? There are even other people in this thread, such as Shannow, who agree with Edward. Is your Fallout 3 experience the only valid one?

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".

No idea. Never used them, but as you can see from my quotes, quite a few people, including youtubers, are enjoying them.

... and quite a few people, like Edward, have found them utterly useless.

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".

So, "fucking awesome" actually means the best?

You're arguing semantics. You've clearly stated several times that the Railway Rifle was one of the best weapons and even compared it's stats up against a weapon Edward said you'd be better off using, namely the Chinese Assault Rifle. A weapon you then turned around and said "Yep, that weapon is better" and seem to have agreed with him that if you had that, you'd use it over the Railway Rifle.

... and once again, you back-peddled and said "I didn't say it was the best!" after I listed the 7 weapons Shannow said were better (that's 2 more than 5).

I'm one of top 5 posters here (talking about post count), but kingcomrade is #1. There is no contradiction. The entire "one of top x" concept implies that it's not the best, not #1. Nobody says this is the best student in the class and also one of the top 5 students in the class. Duh!

That'd be funny, if you hadn't compared KingComrade's post count to your own and said "Look, I have 3 times the number of critical posts! I'm better!". You've constantly back-peddled, whenever Edward said there were better weapons available, you said the Rifle was "fucking awesome" and "one of the top 5" as if meaning it was better than the weapons (which incidentally, is more than 5) that were listed. How about you just agree with Edward that there are a lot of weapons better than the Railway Rifle? That there are a lot of weapons that can kill just as easily and are more abundant with more ammo?

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.

This doesn't make any fucking sense.

Your reply to that quote was to pull out the statistics for the Chinese Assault Rifle, compare them to the statistics for the Railway Rifle and decree "3* criticals! The Railway Rifle is clearly better! There's more to FO3 weapons than just damage stats!".

Double-summersault, back-twisting, FLIP-FLOP.

- easy to find and build, which requires only clicking on the workstation inside a store.

... and yet you also claim you did run out of parts.

- by the time you can build it, you have 200-300 ammo, which guarantees you at least 150-200 dead bodies

... and how much ammo do you have for the other weapons when you find it? Considering you've already just stated you used the Hunting Rifle when that was all you had.

- insane critical hit % - a point you've managed to dodge several times so far

No, that's the part where you said it was better than the Chinese Assault Rifle (a weapon you then turned around and said later was the best weapon in the game - ultimately agreeing with Edward).

- easy to build spares and thus repair, which means that you don't depend on the game supplying you with enough spares.

Said the man who used the Hunting Rifle because he ran out of parts.

Assumption, your honor. I'm just not a mine/grenade kinda guy. I made a dart gun (will cripple a fucking train) and the flaming sword. Both weapons met my satisfaction, but I liked the railway rifle more.

Which is interesting, don't ya think? Here are these weapons which can kill (something Edward never disagreed with) and you're using a different weapon. Meaning they weren't that useful for you, right? I mean, how should someone review a game if not by using their own experiences? What, they have to magically create everyone elses opinion? "Well, I thought the quests sucked but you may not if you've only ever played GTA. And if you're after another game until GTA5 comes out, this is a really awesome action game. 5 stars!"

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.

Either it's time to get new glasses or to dump more points into reading comprehension. I "derided" him NOT for comparing the game to Bloodlines, but for saying - "my character was killing tons of stuff and wrecking house" in Bloodlines, why can't I do it in FO3!!! I even underlined it when I posted it to make it more, uh, user-friendly.

Why isn't Edward comparing two "action games" (according to you) valid? Other action games let you in on the action, Fallout 3 doesn't in some parts. Gee, sounds like a pretty poor action game.

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

Do you agree with that particular criticism? About not being able to "kill tons of stuff" in Fallout 3. Let's get you on record. Speak clearly and into the microphone, please.

Nice strawman but it's not the issue. The issue is what games we're allowed to compare Fallout 3 to under VD's ever-flexible rules of game comparison. Edward made a perfectly valid comparison that in Bloodlines, you get to kick-ass against the bad guys. In Fallout 3, you don't. I don't see what your problem is with that in a game you've already declared is an "action game" and isn't allowed to be compared to anything other than a small subset of other games you've approved.

FLIP-FLOP again VD. Apparently Bethesda have made several advances in the role-playing department only to come up with an action game.

So did the Gothic people. You may want to read my Gothic 3 review when you have a chance.

Here's a nice quote:

I would prefer the previous combat skills setup where you raise your skill very slowly, a few learning points at a time. To compare, in Gothic 2 you need 100 hard-earned points to gain one of the masteries. In Gothic 3 you need only 15 (plus some Strength requirements) relatively easy-to-get points.

What, compare Gothic 3 to Gothic 2? Who'd do a silly thing like that!

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)?"

And? Are you saying that an action RPG can't have great quest design and skill checks? Why?

Considering Edward has attacked the quest design (apparently it's "great" in your mind but not in many others). He said they've improved but still fell far short of the mark. You came at him saying "have they improved or haven't they??!". Oh and I see it's an "action RPG" now and not just an "action game"? That's good to know. I wonder, what makes it action, the fact it has combat?

[*]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.

Jesus! Are you not well? Or that desperate to prove me wrong somehow? What you are posting doesn't make any sense. In that linked thread I said "Anyone who followed Morrowind/Oblivion development knows that Bethesda did lie deliberately...". Where do you see a word about MW's qualities?

Lied deliberately at making a game "loaded with choices & consequences, branching quests, and other role-playing goodness", something we value here at the RPGCodex. Something which is criticised in Morrowind but apparently, once you make a game better than Morrowind, you're not allowed to criticise it. Like I said, you keep excusing Fallout 3 because it "did it better than Morrowind" one of the "top 10 rpgs" and recommended by "3 out of 4 Codex admins". Apparently once a game's been recommended by the Codex, it's the greatest game evar and you're not allowed to criticise something for still failing to reach the mark. That's the point, VD. Fallout 3 still fails to reach the high water mark. The only justification you have is to exclude every other RPG that did choice and consequence better and limit comparisons to games that had little to no choice and conseqeunce in the first place.

It seems to be what you're inferring...
...
You inferred as much....

Into mind-reading now, aren't we?

Look up the definition of infer. What else did you think you were doing when you pointed at the Railway Rifle and said "Look, 3* more crits than the Chinese Assault Rifle! There's more to weapons than damage stats!"

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.

And how would you approach reviewing Sacred 2 or Diablo 3 then? Or Silent Storm? Enlighten me please on Silent Storm's RPG merits, oh wise one.

Saint would compare it to Fallout:

All classes have the same set of skills but vary in Abilities, which act similar to Fallout's Perks.

... and clearly declare it a "tactical type game". Talk about how a dialogue system would've been nice:

It would have been nice if the game had an actual dialogue system as opposed to the canned cut scene speeches. In fact, even adding a bit of a speech skill would have gone a long way to making this more interesting - allowing a player to develop diplomatic methods for making missions easier by recruiting civilians to help out, or even talking enemies in to surrendering.

... and compare the combat to Fallout too:

For those familiar with turn based games like Fallout, Jagged Alliance 2, and others, you shouldn't have a hard time getting used to the combat system in this game.

By the way, you'd also note Silent Storm doesn't have this whole quest thing, dialogue system that Fallout 3 does and isn't part of a series of highly critically acclaimed RPGs. There's lots of reasons to look at Fallout 3 and ask for a higher standard in what we want from choice and consequences in RPGs. Especially when we did the same to Morrowind and Oblivion:

Making a smaller Tamriel world, but adding an actual Oblivion plane with a few daedra towns and regular daedra folks, who may or may not be crazy about the invasion thing, thus giving players far greater role-playing opportunities, would have been a much better choice than borrowing a page from Diablo 2.

What, asking for greater role-playing opportunities in an "action game"? What a silly thing to do.

Did you not notice that most Morrowind fans and top modders disliked/hated Oblivion? Including Frankie, the self-proclaimed #1 (don't confuse with "top 5") Bethesda fan.

But it's one of the top five VD! Up there with Morrowind and... Well, gee... I guess that's about it for the narrow "sandbox action game" category you've so eloquently carved out for it. God forbid somebody dare look at Fallout 3 and ask "What kind of RPG is this, considering it's marketed as one?". Especially here at the RPGCodex, which was a site founded to ask those questions. To look at games that call themselves RPGs and compare them to the best that's been released. To ask for greater choice and consequence. To ask for RPGs that actually provided real role-playing opportunities and not just fake ones that all lead to the same result. And just because it's first-person and made by a different bunch of guys, doesn't mean it gets let off the hook.

 

[DefJam101]

 

[ricolikesrice]

To ask for RPGs that actually provided real role-playing opportunities and not just fake ones that all lead to the same result

has there been any in the last few years aside from MOTB ?

i realize you re not a fan of the witcher (sympathy points right there) but if you look at the codex forums you will see both the witcher and nwn2: storms of zehir are talked about as pretty good cRPGs while fallout 3 is trashed by most-

i.e. a game with 100s of fake choices and nothing else but constant (bad) combat in a generic copypasta world (pretty much party-based oblivion in isometric) is an acceptable RPG because its made by obsidian while a game like fallout 3 with some real choices, less combat than SoZ, more exploration and a more consistent world etc. is being nitpicked apart because its not good enough.

cant talk for VD but maybe thats why he s soo defensive about FO3 ? we can all agree its no real fallout ..... but doesnt it strike you as weird just what kind of retarded double standards the codex uses right now ?

we might as well be worshipping space siege while trashing mass effect. thats cool enough for getting points with little retards who think its all about "fighting the big bad companies !" but is the codex supposed to be a serious site about RPG discussion or is it merely the anti-gamespot where AAA games dont get overrated but underrated and not-so-AAA games get overrated and not underrated ?

i dont have any issues with edwards fallout 3 review, he obviously has higher standards than me because i did find the game enjoyable though not great.
i m just *really* curious on his review on SoZ or what the codex will pick RPG of the year 2008 because if fallout 3 isnt even good enough to be mediocre ... i m really interested in how many things that suck in fallout 3 will be just wonderful or acceptable in other games as long as they arent done by bethesda or bioware.

 

[Darth Roxor]

And that's kind of a problem with Fallout 3's combat. It should push you to have to use different things. Like in Fallout 1, fighting higher level opponents with only small guns skill can be rather iffy. It helps to have big guns or energy weapons against hardier opposition, like the Brotherhood, super mutants, robots, deathclaws, and the Master.

I played through whole FO1 with the .223 pistol in one hand and the sniper rifle in the other

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?

address to it biach.

Figure it out.

Oh, but I'd like to hear you say something about it.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

I played through whole FO1 with the .223 pistol in one hand and the sniper rifle in the other.

This is rather strange, weapons using the 5.56mm rounds have more power then a DEagle 0.44 or a Magnum - quite unbalanced if you ask me.

 

[Claw]

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.

Thanks for the recap. I know that the argument isn't whether or not the RR can kills stuff. I was just nitpicking Edward's choice of words. I felt Edward ought to have asked for VD's Top5 for a direct comparison as to me, the critical issue seems to be what you compare the Railway Rifle to when judging its relative uselessness.
I just noticed something about VD's comparison of the RR to the Chinese Asssault Rifle and the Shotgun. If I understand how criticals work correctly, the crit damage is simply added to the normal damage. Maybe overall damage isn't the only factor, but it certainly matters alot, especially if a whole bunch of weapons do as much or more normal damage than other weapons (like the RR) do on a critical hit. But I'm not the first to notice, heh.

Of course, I didn't follow this debate so closely, but it seems to come down mostly to availability of weapons and ammo. I guess I can't judge that for myself yet.

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.

Maybe if you have low repair you shouldn't be using your money to build mines. Look, I understand all the arguments, but at the end of the day, a mine with ten caps as shrapnel just doesn't convince me. It's half-assed. Well, what else did I expect from Bethesda? Silly me.

 

[RainSong]

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?

address to it biach.

Figure it out.

you just got

 

[elander_]

Same thing with games. I prefer higher standards; life's too short to waste time with crap.

So you agree with me this is what you and a Codex elite prefers (who has had a chance to play the best crpgs) and not a review that considers all crpgs that have been made to date and all kinds of players. As long as you make that clear in your review i don't see any problem with it. Saying that Fallout 3 is crap is somewhat irrelevant in that case. It would be better if you just provided examples of games that did much better and stick to useful information.

Oh, but I'd like to hear you say something about it.

Im not VD but maybe i can help you. Were Fallout, RoA or Baldurs Gate ever called sandbox games by the press? They were crpgs and at that time crpgs were expected to have a world map. There are some significant differences that affect game play:

- Sandboxes usually represent a rectangular patch of land that let's you go anywhere as long as you don't get killed or screwed in some way.

- It's hard to put random encounters into a sandbox or have a believable representation of land with realistic distances and travel times.

- In a world map some locations will only be revealed when you get a proper quest. It's a simulation of a land map and not of a rectangular patch of terrain.

This makes sandboxes different games from classic crpgs with a world map. Less flexible games for the sake of visual immersion.

PS: Arcanum is a sort of an hybrid. It doesn't restrict access to locations until they are marked in your map and can work like a sandbox letting you walk in the world anywhere. However the world map is huge and it uses a isometric view which makes it less annoying.

 

[MetalCraze]

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.

You do know that you can wipe every shit out in FO1/FO2 and still complete the game? And oh please don't tell me that FO1/FO2 aren't combat focused - just because Troika had designers that aren't shit unlike Beth and gave you more freedom of choice than F3.

Except FO3 was designed to ape FO1/2.

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

Let's see:
Designers threw in everything they've remotely heard about Fallouts - you even nearly have recycled storyline parts. Even goddamn GECK is there. They tried to ape "Fallout's dark humour" but being untalented they took it to the new levels of retarded instead. And all those dialogues/quests with C&C (though fake and poorly made because that's the best Beth can do) - why didn't Beth just go with their trademarked TES blandness? But no it wasn't copying of Fallout (especially in the game they've positioned as a sequel) it is just Beth becoming all good and evolving from their primitive TES formula.

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?

Flip-flop. Weren't you just saying that F3 is so so different from those RPGs? But now it has so many things in common with 95% of RPGs.
Wait - are you agreeing with me now?

You can. Go nuts.

Oh - you always were a master of arguments.

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?

The only difference is that FO1/2 push you through a storyline at first but after that give you a total freedom of exploration and of doing everything you want.
Oh and a seamless world.
Arcanum btw is even more sandboxy than FO1/2 because it totally doesn't push you anywhere (except for assasins encounters which aren't different from any other combat encounter in Arcanum) and you can easily focus on exploring the world and it has much more to show and let you do than F3 or GTAs and AssCreed.
But wait! So BG2 is a sandbox game now too? Because it fits your description well. Fine let's compare BG2 to F3. Or probably not because the result is predictable for F3.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You do know that you can wipe every shit out in FO1/FO2 and still complete the game? And oh please don't tell me that FO1/FO2 aren't combat focused - just because Troika had designers that aren't shit unlike Beth and gave you more freedom of choice than F3.

But you see, skyway, killing everything in an RPG isn't really something special. Saying "I've played this RPG and I just killed everything" won't produce any "really?". Thus it can't be used as a defining factor. Fallout is one of the very few games that could be beaten without killing anything and that is something.

Except FO3 was designed to ape FO1/2:

Designers threw in everything they've remotely heard about Fallouts - you even nearly have recycled storyline parts. Even goddamn GECK is there. They tried to ape "Fallout's dark humour" but being untalented they took it to the new levels of retarded instead. And all those dialogues/quests with C&C (though fake and poorly made because that's the best Beth can do) - why didn't Beth just go with their trademarked TES blandness? But no it wasn't copying of Fallout ...

So, if FOBoS (the game) had some dialogues and a few quests with C&C, it would have been qualified to be called a proper Fallout sequel and to be compared with the original game?

Or let's use Lionheart because it's a better example. We have Barcelona and that other town - well-done role-playing hubs. The rest of the game, which is about 90%, is hack-n-slash. That's why it can't be compared to Fallout even though it has SPECIAL, well written dialogues, role-playing, choices & consequences, etc.

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?

Flip-flop. Weren't you just saying that F3 is different from other RPGs with the same things? And thus can't be compared.
Wait - are you agreeing with me now?

Flip-flop? Learning how to debate from the best? Anyway, my point was that 95% of RPGs have character systems, combat, quests, and dialogues. It's like comparing two different books, because they have chapters, illustrations, and covers. Of course they have. They are fucking books.

Jesus fucking Christ, is it that difficult to grasp? Can you compare Arcanum to ToEE and say which game is definitely better? No, because these are two different games. Even though ToEE had dialogue skill checks and a shitload of choices, ToEE can only be compared to other dungeon crawlers.

Oh - you always were a master of arguments.

I'm getting tired of the stupidity in this thread and having to explain 50 times why "top 5" doesn't mean "the best".

The only difference is that FO1/2 push you through a storyline at first but after that give you a total freedom of exploration and of doing everything you want.

Which is what exactly? Once you are done with the handful of quests per town, you are done. Move on or stay and stare at the screen all day. Can you explore around each town, looking for and finding new things? Can you constantly find new things? Can you play for a few hours doing "nothing important" like you can in GTA, Fallout 3, Morrowind, Gothic?

Fallout 2 is a big game, but a sandbox it's not.

Arcanum btw is even more sandboxy than FO1/2 because it totally doesn't push you anywhere...

Non-linear and sandbox are two different concepts.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Thanks for the recap. I know that the argument isn't whether or not the RR can kills stuff. I was just nitpicking Edward's choice of words. I felt Edward ought to have asked for VD's Top5 for a direct comparison as to me, the critical issue seems to be what you compare the Railway Rifle to when judging its relative uselessness.

The real question is "is the railway rifle useless?". It's not.

Who cares if my "top 5" is the same as someone else's top 5? I have my own preferences. I don't like using mines and launchers, but I wouldn't call them useless.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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?

Is the focus on living in the gameworld and exploring? No. You don't explore. You find more places to go, that's one of the differences.

Exploring a sandbox world is the main feature. You can explore it for hours without finding anything important and have a lot of fun. Can you explore the Fallout wasteland for hours without finding anything and still have fun? No.

A sandbox world is loaded with hundreds of different places to find. Hundreds. Fallout 2 has about 20. Outside of these 20 places there is absolutely nothing to do. Once you done all the quests the game is over. It would take a sandbox game a few hundred hours to run out of content. You may not like that content, but that's a different story.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But, much of the above is not all that common in the sub-genre recently, so I feel some comparison to other recent RPGs would be useful...

It was common enough in Darklands, Daggerfall, Morrowind to some degree, and Gothic. Oblivion was a super shitty sandbox game, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore all the other sandbox games and their features.

The game lacked focus, and the disconnect between "we're making a Fallout game" and "but, it needs to be as M&O-like as possible" comes through strongly.

That I agree with.

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.

There is a far greater focus on this in FO3.

I disagree, but that's subjective. MW had a lot more quests, so anything good was lost in the sea of generic quests.

Whereas, I cannot think of too many areas where Morrowind failed, and consider it a good game, if not one I personally enjoyed. One game did not contain elements required for me to enjoy an RPG, the other had most of them, but just did not do them well enough.

Fair enough.

Disagree that this aspect was weak for a sandbox game.

Fair enough, I even agree with the underlined. However, I do feel the lack of consequence does at least warrant a mention.

Weak and lack are two different things, no?

As you said previously, most games can benefit from quality C&C, and I think it's worth pointing out where the game could have improved in this area.

It applies to every game though.

Personally the lack of consequences did affect my play experience, this could be due to it being a Fallout sequel, or my own personal preferences, but the game did seem to hit me over the head with "this game is not about consequences!".

Because it's a sandbox game. Like I said in my review, a mental block is required to override "I can't believe they turned Fallout into a fucking sandbox game".

 

[inwoker]

Now I remmember why I joined codex in the first place. It's like sandbox game. You can explore it for hours, post some interesting/crappy posts. And you won't accomplish anything but it would be fun.

 

[MetalCraze]

But you see, skyway, killing everything in an RPG isn't really something special. Saying "I've played this RPG and I just killed everything" won't produce any "really?". Thus it can't be used as a defining factor. Fallout is one of the very few games that could be beaten without killing anything and that is something.

But for F3 killing everything is a defining factor despite the game throwing at you non-combat stuff?
Again there is no difference between killing stuff in F1/2/3. You still kill stuff. Except in F1/2 you can avoid it due to a better design while F3 -tries- (or pretends to at least) to do the same but due to poor design it fails.

So, if FOBoS (the game) had some dialogues and a few quests with C&C, it would have been qualified to be called a proper Fallout sequel and to be compared with the original game?

Nobody says F3 is a proper sequel. But in this case you could've compared writing/story/quests/dialogues in both games (F1/2 and FOBoS). But hey that didn't stop people from comparing FOBoS to F1/2 as a spin-off game and also comparing it to much better h'n's games and declaring FOBoS a piece of shit. Rightfully.

Or let's use Lionheart because it's a better example. We have Barcelona and that other town - well-done role-playing hubs. The rest of the game, which is about 90%, is hack-n-slash. That's why it can't be compared to Fallout even though it has SPECIAL, well written dialogues, role-playing, choices & consequences, etc.

But I can compare Barcelona to Athkatla or Fallout towns. And I can compare h'n's parts to such parts in other h'n's games to give a verdict. What you doesn't seem to understand still, despite me posting it over and over - is that I don't force you to compare non-RPG parts of FO3 to F1/2 or other RPG for that matter, but I compare them to the same parts in other shooters/action RPGs like Gothic and Bloodlines. I compare only similar parts - and FO3 loses on all fronts to many good games.
But you're acting just like a generic ag.ru (I believe gamespot has the same) fanboy who cries in a way of "oh no you can't compare [currently beloved game] to anything because it has the same elements you saw in other games (done much better) mixed a bit differently".

Flip-flop? Learning how to debate from the best?

Yes, teacher.

Anyway, my point was that 95% of RPGs have character systems, combat, quests, and dialogues. It's like comparing two different books, because they have chapters, illustrations, and covers. Of course they have. They are fucking books.

Again a poor comparison. Books can be of a similar genre (like sci-fi) and of many similarities (like about PA universe) and why can't I compare them? I can easily compare f.e. the story/characters/even ship designs of Mass Effect to the same in Babylon 5 despite the first being a game and the second - tv series.
Do you catch my drift? If not please read a little above.

Jesus fucking Christ, is it that difficult to grasp? Can you compare Arcanum to ToEE and say which game is definitely better? No, because these are two different games. Even though ToEE had dialogue skill checks and a shitload of choices, ToEE can only be compared to other dungeon crawlers.

*sigh*
I also compared F3 to Bloodlines/The Witcher and Gothic. I wrote that F3 is a steaming pile of shit compared to them and explained why. What's your problem? I compare only similar things in F3 to F1/2 - but it really is difficult to grasp, aye?

I'm getting tired of the stupidity in this thread and having to explain 50 times why "top 5" doesn't mean "the best".

My honest condolences, though I even don't know your Top5.

Which is what exactly? Once you are done with the handful of quests per town, you are done. Move on or stay and stare at the screen all day.

Hey that's just like in F3

Can you explore around each town, looking for and finding new things?

In Arcanum you can. F.e. in one town (forgot its name, but I remember it's a town south of Tarant - the one with the werewolf quest iirc) you can go beyond the city limits, find a road which will lead you to a camp of some bandits where you can even have yourself a few new quests. It isn't even marked on the map - and there are quite a bunch of these places here and there which won't be marked on the map until you will stumble across them (or won't be marked on the map even after that - which kinda gives an exploration a sense)
In F1/2 random encounters consisting of buildings/other combat unrelated content are something like that too.

Can you constantly find new things? Can you play for a few hours doing "nothing important" like you can in GTA, Fallout 3, Morrowind, Gothic?

You can't constantly find new things in aforementioned games either. And talking about F3/Morrowind - "nothing important" usually means killing more stuff. Whereas in F1/F2 you can f.e. just go to a casino and do "nothing important" there f.e. Or escort caravans.

Fallout 2 is a big game, but a sandbox it's not.

Oh but it fits your sandbox definition as much as F3 does as we can see.

Non-linear and sandbox are two different concepts.

About Arcanum - read above.