Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[Alex]

Skyway, I think that VD's point is that you simply shouldn't go around comparing features from games that are too different from each other, even if the features are similar. The problem with this kind of comparison, is that it can lead to some pretty ridiculous situation, like comparing the story of each game with both fallout and torment. It would be a great feat if a story could be as well written as torment's and as plentiful in C&C as fallout's, but obviously most won't do so well.

So, if I take a game that has a lot of C&C, like Arcanum, and say its story and dialogues are bad because they aren't as well written as Torment, I am failing to see the strength of the game by expecting it to be something it isn't.

Besides, the strength of a game can be hidden, not in one or other feature, but in how they relate to each other. For example, maybe Fallout 3's combat is boring, its science system not that interesting and its dungeons monotonous. But perhaps, when taken together, they are fun! Maybe the science system gives enough variety to combat, and the dungeons, while repetitive by themselves, serve as decent enough theater for the combat.

 

[Punck_D]

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

If it's in Black Root, then these bandits are involved with a quest given by the mayor. Other locations on the world map like the lagoon near roseborough are given by NPCs through rumors. Then there are locations which you stumble on when you are travelling from point of interest to point of interest. Sure you can explore Arcanum and find some places, but it's not intended to do so by design I think. Exploring is boring in Arcanum.

And finally there are some easter eggs like the guy with the flying guillotine, comparable with the special encounters in Fallout 1+2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A science guy feels the same as a speech guy who feels the same as anyone else.

That was often the case in Bloodlines. You were given a bunch of different options in one dialogue and it didn't really matter which skill you used. Don't recall this particular aspect being criticized and studied under a microscope.

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

Yes, but more stuff falls on the bad side.

Bad? Or standard RPG fare?

Jack of all trades syndrome takes over too heavily. It's too easy to be good at everything you need to be.

Most single character games, including Fallout, have this syndrome. In Fallout 2 I had all 3 gun skills above 125, Science 125 for the robo brain, Doctor 75 for the implants, plus decent Lockpicks, Steal, and Repair. I was lvl 22-24 (i.e. not 30+)

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.

Unlike Gifted? Perks aren't useless because they increase very useful skills. They aren't interesting, but that's a different matter.

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.

http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=627374#627374

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

I think you're confusing "believable world" with "atmospheric locations".

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

Some people liked Wiz 8.

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.

You can buy one in the Underworld. You could have also looked it up in the wiki. As it stands, you said that something is shit because you missed an opportunity to acquire it much earlier.

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.

Not necessarily. Can happen by accident, since all locations are open.

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.

The .223 pistol? Fallout 3 does push to use different weapons (ammo, poor condition, AP cost, etc)

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

Pretty sure. And unlike "next-generation", it's not a buzzword. It's a name for a specific sub-genre that's been around for a long time. Don't like "sandbox", pick another name. It won't change anything.

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

My sentiments exactly.

RPGs however, are a different beast. Looking at your definition, don't most RPGs sort of fulfill that?
...

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.

Well, you accept dungeon crawlers as a different breed even though all RPGs have dungeon crawling. What makes dungeon crawlers special is their dedication to this particular element. Even though they have quests, dialogues, and even choices & consequences (Wiz 8 and ToEe), they are a minor aspect that doesn't get in the way of dungeon crawling and doesn't take much of your time.

Same with sandbox games. While they have all the RPG elements, the focus is exploring every inch of huge worlds and doing whatever you want, which doesn't mean "which side quest I should do next?"

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.

Many RPGs have all the elements. The trick is the ratio and focus. I think we can agree that in both Fallout games quests & dialogues represented at least 75% of gameplay. In Fallout 3 this aspect is reduced to 15-25%. The rest is exploring, looting, and killing.

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.

Didn't you just say:

"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."

Throw in pretty much endless exploration and you've got it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Skyway, I think that VD's point is that you simply shouldn't go around comparing features from games that are too different from each other, even if the features are similar. The problem with this kind of comparison, is that it can lead to some pretty ridiculous situation, like comparing the story of each game with both fallout and torment. It would be a great feat if a story could be as well written as torment's and as plentiful in C&C as fallout's, but obviously most won't do so well.

So, if I take a game that has a lot of C&C, like Arcanum, and say its story and dialogues are bad because they aren't as well written as Torment, I am failing to see the strength of the game by expecting it to be something it isn't.

Exactly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But for F3 killing everything is a defining factor despite the game throwing at you non-combat stuff?

Most games have non-combat stuff. The key is the ratio. Surely you are able to see this?

Again there is no difference between killing stuff in F1/2/3. You still kill stuff.

*sigh*

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.

Whatever floats your boat. We exchanged our opinions. You know what I think, I know what you think.

But I can compare Barcelona to Athkatla or Fallout towns.

Good for you.

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".

Yes, I do have a reputation of a Bethesda fanboy, don't I?

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.

You are a true patriot. Neither Bloodlines nor The Witcher are sandbox RPGs (not that you care), but I would be curious to see your comparison to Gothic.

What's your problem? I compare only similar things in F3 to F1/2 - but it really is difficult to grasp, aye?

No, it's not. That part was crystal clear from the beginning.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

I won't reply to the rest of your post, DU, and will address only this paragraph (I started replying but realized that it's pointless).

I've debated with you plenty of times. You are good at it, which is why it's enjoyable. Unfortunately this time I don't get you at all. 30% of your arguments were dedicated to "top 5 means it's the best!!!", 60% to quoting me randomly and typing "Flip-flop". 10% was worth discussing, but it's getting harder and harder to dig it out.

Anyway, let's go back to this paragraph that killed my interest to participate in this discussion with you further.

...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.

- I've never said that ammo is scarce. You can run out of it - temporarily, which would force you to change a weapon, but it's not scarce and will be refilled quickly. No need to scream "flip-flop" again. Scarce means rare. FO3's ammo is anything but. However, guns eat ammo quickly, especially in "shooter" mode, which is a different story.

- I've never disputed that some weapons get more ammo. I said that getting the spikes for the rifle wasn't a problem. You're inferring way too much here.

- I've never said or implied that the railway rifle is the easiest to repair. I said it's easy to repair, so it's seems to me that you are pretending that easy and easiest are the same thing.

Overall, the repair difficulty depends on the weapons flow. In the first third of the game, chinese rifles were rare, but hunting rifles were everywhere. Making more railway rifles was way easier than finding more chinese rifles and shotguns. Fixing hunting rifles is much easier, but they aren't as good as the railway rifle. In the second half of the game the chinese rifles are on every super mutant and repairing them gets much easier.

- I've never said that the railway rifle is the best, most powerful weapon in the game. Hence, the top 5 thing. My math skills are more than sufficient to compare 30 and 52. However, the triple critical % is what makes the rifle very competitive and keeps it in the top 5 group.

Basically, you've turned my "top 5" into "the best", "easy" into the "easiest", and "no problem" into "the most". When you failed to back your assumptions with direct quotes, you started claimed that you inferred it.

Now, if you are done trying to twist my words and claim that I said something I didn't, we can discuss the nature of my criticism and whatever real flaws you may see in it, or we can end this conversation. Your call.

 

[Shagnak]

However, the triple critical % is what makes the rifle very competitive and keeps it in the top 5 group.

Ho! Posting in mega argument!

Just a question - where did you get "triple critical %" from? Is it in the manual/interface somewhere (can't check from here)? Or did it require you to look it up on the interwebs?
Just making certain I haven't missed anything obvious. Thanks in advance.

...and back to the argument...

(is it just me, or do threads like this bring out pangs of nostalgia?)

Edit:
This page doesn't seem to mention any increased crit chance, though it does for some others.

 

[Vault Dweller]

However, the triple critical % is what makes the rifle very competitive and keeps it in the top 5 group.

Ho! Posting in mega argument!

Just a question - where did you get "triple critical %" from? Is it in the manual/interface somewhere (can't check from here)? Or did it require you to look it up on the interwebs?
Just making certain I haven't missed anything obvious. Thanks in advance.

No, you haven't. If you use the rifle you'll notice that it does kill things faster and often in one shot. Unfortunately, the full data is only in the guide and on the web, not in the game.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equ ... llguns.php

Missing data are rate of fire, spread, critical damage, critical multiplier %.

is it just me, or do threads like this bring out pangs of nostalgia?

It sure does.

 

[Claw]

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

That depends on how you define "useless" in the context. Sure, your personal Top5 are not all that important, but how you justify them may be. If your argument is "I just like pinning people to walls" then that's a matter of taste, but if you argue that the weapon is effective that is quite another. I didn't mean you should simply compare your favourites with Edward, but debate what makes them good.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Useless is too specific and too strong a word to require a context clarification.

Is it an effective rifle? Yes, it is. If you have doubt, watch that video I posted.
How does it compare to other small guns? Not as good as the assault rifles & shotgun, but better than the hunting rifle (damage, rate of fire, clip).
Does it compensate for offering less damage than the assault rifle and shotgun? Yes - triple critical rate.

Verdict - may not be for everyone, but definitely not useless. Teh end.

 

[Shagnak]

No, you haven't. If you use the rifle you'll notice that it does kill things faster and often in one shot. Unfortunately, the full data is only in the guide and on the web, not in the game.

http://www.gamebanshee.com/fallout3/equ ... llguns.php

Thanks.
I did use it a little, and it did seem quite effective (even at low repair %), but then I got Ol' Painless for distance and the combat shotty for close range and never looked back. Actually, looking at that page Ol' Painless doesn't look all that effective, but I ramped up Small Guns as rapidly as possible and it seemed useful enough for most of the game.

That Gamebanshee site sure is helpful; why on earth do I never remember it exists?

 

[Claw]

You know, I actually just criticised Edward's choice of words a few pages ago.

I don't believe "useless" doesn't require a context clarification, though. A weapon that might be useful early on can be considered "useless" if it's available only later in the game. That seemed to be Edward's argument, too. Whether or not he's correct is another matter.

 

[Beans00]

I love the vault dweller, im gonna buy his game just because hes a badass! I dont care if i even like it or not, i might even buy 2 copies!

 

[St. Toxic]

I'm sorry I missed this shitfest, but it appears that VD is getting a good whacking even without my help. I think I'll just drop a few quotes to amuse myself.

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.

Sort of like that level in Doom where you're in this big city-like enviroment, which may as well be called a "huge area" by the standards one had back then.

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

Excellent. Now can you spot the difference between Fallout and Arcanum?

Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as good as Saint...

Good, bad, etcetera with a gun. Oh, you mean Proverbius.

Were Fallout, RoA or Baldurs Gate ever called sandbox games by the press?

By the press? That's actually pretty funny.

- 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.

I haven't heard worse drivel than this for a very long time. Good job.

As for "sandbox" games, I'll give you all a more accurate definition to gripe about. A "sandbox" game does not have a main storyline or quest; a "sandbox" game has a "goal". The Beth gems certainly have elements of "sandbox" gameplay, but their games are in fact more story driven than not, and provide you with an exceptionally linear main quest. Fallout 3 is in essence a story driven aRPG with "sandbox" elements thrown into the mix.

Actual "sandbox" games would include the early GTA's (where you collected money to advance further without any coherent story attached) but not the 3rd person free-roam GTA's (where you have a linear story to follow). Survival Crisis Z is a sandbox game. There are even plenty of text-based sandbox games (representation is not the important factor of the genre), but I've forgotten the names of these for the time being. The Sims, obviously not a sim in any way or form, is a "sandbox" game.

Fuck "the press", they can't find their own dicks while fellating themselves, and the same goes for some developers and pretty much all the PR people in existance. All they want is something that sounds attractive and tickles the fancy of average Joe fucktard, who grew up on blowing FF7 hard, wishing it'd turn into a first person Diablo with real-world graphics midway, so that he could shit his pants in addition to the usual sobs over the death of Aeris, and so a shiny screenshot with the "sandbox RPG FPS ultrasuper" slogan gives him a raging hardon and he gulps it down like it ain't no thang, nigra. No one is selling games anymore; they're all selling names, and some of you are obviously buying it.

I love the vault dweller, im gonna buy his game just because hes a badass! I dont care if i even like it or not, i might even buy 2 copies!

:fart: Shit, what did I just eat?

 

[Beans00]

I'm sorry I missed this shitfest, but it appears that VD is getting a good whacking even without my help. I think I'll just drop a few quotes to amuse myself.

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.

Sort of like that level in Doom where you're in this big city-like enviroment, which may as well be called a "huge area" by the standards one had back then.

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

Excellent. Now can you spot the difference between Fallout and Arcanum?

Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as good as Saint...

Good, bad, etcetera with a gun. Oh, you mean Proverbius.

Were Fallout, RoA or Baldurs Gate ever called sandbox games by the press?

By the press? That's actually pretty funny.

- 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.

I haven't heard worse drivel than this for a very long time. Good job.

As for "sandbox" games, I'll give you all a more accurate definition to gripe about. A "sandbox" game does not have a main storyline or quest; a "sandbox" game has a "goal". The Beth gems certainly have elements of "sandbox" gameplay, but their games are in fact more story driven than not, and provide you with an exceptionally linear main quest. Fallout 3 is in essence a story driven aRPG with "sandbox" elements thrown into the mix.

Actual "sandbox" games would include the early GTA's (where you collected money to advance further without any coherent story attached) but not the 3rd person free-roam GTA's (where you have a linear story to follow). Survival Crisis Z is a sandbox game. There are even plenty of text-based sandbox games (representation is not the important factor of the genre), but I've forgotten the names of these for the time being. The Sims, obviously not a sim in any way or form, is a "sandbox" game.

Fuck "the press", they can't find their own dicks while fellating themselves, and the same goes for some developers and pretty much all the PR people in existance. All they want is something that sounds attractive and tickles the fancy of average Joe fucktard, who grew up on blowing FF7 hard, wishing it'd turn into a first person Diablo with real-world graphics midway, so that he could shit his pants in addition to the usual sobs over the death of Aeris, and so a shiny screenshot with the "sandbox RPG FPS ultrasuper" slogan gives him a raging hardon and he gulps it down like it ain't no thang, nigra. No one is selling games anymore; they're all selling names, and some of you are obviously buying it.

I love the vault dweller, im gonna buy his game just because hes a badass! I dont care if i even like it or not, i might even buy 2 copies!

:fart: Shit, what did I just eat?

your gay

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm sorry I missed this shitfest, but it appears that VD is getting a good whacking even without my help.

Wishful thinking?

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.

Sort of like that level in Doom where you're in this big city-like enviroment, which may as well be called a "huge area" by the standards one had back then.

OMG! It's EXACTLY like that level!!!

...if you stop reading after "A huge area..". Attention deficit?

 

[elander_]

By the press? That's actually pretty funny.

Maybe it's not your definition but it's what the press and consequently most people think of when they read "sandbox". There's nothing to define here. Sandbox is just a name people associate to a certain kind of game and gameplay and nobody associates sandbox to the sims or text-based games.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

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

Some people liked Wiz 8.

Wow ! Chill out man. Making fun of Wizardry 8 combat to defend Fallout 3 is just wrong. Unless your definition of boring combat is really weird. If so, well have fun with VATS I guess. :wink:

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm a big fan of Wiz 8, but its combat isn't the most exciting thing. Sometimes traveling between A and B could be extremely painful and tedious.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I get you. But that was because there were tons of combat, not because it was boring "per se". In my experience, any game that sends tons of combat your way makes it boring at times. Crap, even JA2 had the occasional one fight too many.
But what SIR TECH did to bring tactical depth to "blob-like" party combat is amazing and outshines any other title of the sort that I played.

Also, I pretty much knew you liked Wiz 8. That's why I think you should leave those snide remarks aside... it's only Fallout 3. You should resort to using that kind of "low blows" for when you fight over a real noble cause.

 

[Twinfalls]

Feel free to point out some "errors".

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

Wrong

the radically useless schematic weaponry

Wrong

the next moment you're talking to actual vampire people

Wrong

Bethesda [did not implement] some sort of stealth kill system

Wrong, wrong, wrong! And what's this? Candy?

Look, in hindsight I was too glib with your piece. The first section especially is really good, you described nicely what you liked about Fallout and set up your expectations well. You make plenty of good criticisms from there, however I'm afraid it descends into a clunky diatribe which feels sprayed together - like a Jackson Pollock of gripes. It does feel rushed, in the manner VD explained.

But anyway, I need to get out of the way of this awesome one-man-against-an-army thread starring Vince 'Rambo' Dweller...

 

[Vault Dweller]

I get you. But that was because there were tons of combat, not because it was boring "per se". In my experience, any game that sends tons of combat your way makes it boring at times. Crap, even JA2 had the occasional one fight too many.
But what SIR TECH did to bring tactical depth to "blob-like" party combat is amazing and outshines any other title of the sort that I played.

True. The combat system is very enjoyable and the character system compliments it nicely. It's great at low levels, but fighting hordes of 200+ hit points enemies at every step in the middle of the game sucks the enjoyment out of it.

Also, I pretty much knew you liked Wiz 8. That's why I think you should leave those snide remarks aside... it's only Fallout 3. You should resort to using that kind of "low blows" for when you fight over a real noble cause.

It wasn't a low blow. At least it wasn't supposed to be one. Edward made a sarcastic remark about people enjoying tons of boring combat and I reminded him of Wiz 8.

You make plenty of good criticisms from there, however I'm afraid it descends into a clunky diatribe which feels sprayed together - like a Jackson Pollock of gripes. It does feel rushed, in the manner VD explained.

I think that Edward's mind was made up a long time ago. This post, for example, made before Edward had a chance to play the game, mirrors his review. I'm not as good at "inferring" as Dark Underlord, so I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

 

[Beans00]

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.

lol

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Too bad you can't quote the whole thread, right Beans ?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

[To Skyway] Flip-flop? Learning how to debate from the best?

Why, I'm flattered VD. Now just for clarification, is that "the" best or just top 5? And who am I allowed to compare myself to? Is there only a small category of debaters that qualify based on some vague notions you made up yourself or are we speaking overall?

I won't reply to the rest of your post, DU, and will address only this paragraph (I started replying but realized that it's pointless).

Just for the record, here are the things VD thought were pointless to reply to:

1. 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?

2. [...] how should someone review a game if not by using their own experiences? What, they have to magically create everyone elses opinion?

3. 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??!".

4. 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.

5. 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 [...] clearly declare it a "tactical type game". Talk about how a dialogue system would've been nice [...] and compare the combat to Fallout too.
   
   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.

- I've never said that ammo is scarce. You can run out of it - temporarily, which would force you to change a weapon, but it's not scarce and will be refilled quickly.

I'm going to assume you're referring to all types of ammo, given that every time Edward said something was rare (based on his experience), you've turned around and said "no it's not". If it's the case that ammo is plentiful, then why use the "top 5" weapon when you could be using numbers 4, 3, 2 or 1 like Edward said? Unless of course, you just like deliberately making combat harder for yourself.

No need to scream "flip-flop" again. Scarce means rare. FO3's ammo is anything but.

Right, so you do mean all ammo.

I've never disputed that some weapons get more ammo. I said that getting the spikes for the rifle wasn't a problem. You're inferring way too much here.

So if you're going to have "less spikes" than other ammo, wouldn't you logically think that "Hmmmm... I've got this weapon that uses ammo I have loads of vs this other weapon which uses spikes that I have less of (relatively speaking). I may as well not bother with that weapon which uses spikes, considering I'll run out sooner and have to use this other weapon anyway?"

I've never said or implied that the railway rifle is the easiest to repair. I said it's easy to repair, so it's seems to me that you are pretending that easy and easiest are the same thing.

Stuffing hyperbole again VD? I never made the claim the Railway Rifle was "the easiest" to repair. Neither did Edward. Here's what I said again, just for the benefit of your reading comprehension: "Other weapons can be repaired more easily". "More easily" != "easiest" VD. Gosh and after you spent so much time whining about this "top 5" vs "best" crap (which was another claim you created yourself).

Here's the fun part, Edward didn't say it was "the" easiest either. Again, Edward made the comparative statement. He defined the weapon as "useless" based on his comparison to other weapons. As I said, other weapons are easier to repair (never did claim it was "the" easiest, again that's your mouth-stuffing hyperbole, like you did with "I never said it was the best"). You've admitted that other weapons had greater ammo availability. You've now admitted that other weapons are easier to repair. Here's what Edward actually said:

The Railway Rifle seems pretty useless as it's a slightly stronger hunting rifle, except that it doesn't gain the benefit of being easily repaired/resupplied

Notice how he never said "easiest" either? So far, you've agreed with Edward on every point he's raised. Are you now going to FLIP-FLOP again by claiming that all weapons in Fallout 3 are easy to repair and then turn around and talk about the times you ran out of parts?

Try again VD.

Overall, the repair difficulty depends on the weapons flow. In the first third of the game, chinese rifles were rare, but hunting rifles were everywhere.

Incidentally, the Hunting Rifle is one weapon Edward compared the Railway Rifle too (the quote's right above here, just before the large easily readable text for your benefit). If you use your brain, you'd note he's inferring (yup, it means you have to *think* about what they're saying) that the Railway Rifle is useless because it's not that much stronger than the readily available Hunting Rifle (hence the "slightly").

In the second half of the game the chinese rifles are on every super mutant and repairing them gets much easier.

So for the second half of the game, the Railway Rifle is pretty much useless unless you just like carrying inferior equipment around and for the first part of the game, you're using the Hunting Rifle simply because it's more readily available. NOTE: I said "more readily" available not "the only available" weapon just in case you think about trying that hyperbole thing you like to do again.

Basically, you've turned my "top 5" into "the best"

... after you compared it to the best weapon in the game. And again, you cried out "I never said it was the best!" before I said anything of the sort. I pointed out the 7 weapons Shannow listed as being superior, remember and you somehow took that as meaning (or I suppose you "inferred" it) that I thought you were.

"easy" into the "easiest"

Nope, never said that. That's bullshit you cooked up. See above.

and "no problem" into "the most"

More VD bullshit.

Now, if you are done trying to twist my words and claim that I said something I didn't

Right back at ya, chief.

That Gamebanshee site sure is helpful; why on earth do I never remember it exists?

... because GameBanshee have a shitty layout that doesn't let you know, from their front-page, that they actually have all that information. It's pissed me off to no end numerous times.