Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

[Edward_R_Murrow]

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.

Did we play the same Bloodlines? That almost never happened, mostly because both intimidate and seduction were niche skills compared to the might of domination and persuasion. Sure, it happened in some instances, let getting the explosives back fromthe gangbangers, but more often than not, that didn't happen. Even the first real dialogue had the option of taking the guy's money,having him give you his watch, or luring him to the alley for a snack. And there were many instances were persuasion could do things domination couldn't, and vice versa.

Bad? Or standard RPG fare?

Both? I mean, yeah, standard "go here, kill stuff, fetch this" quests are by most means the norm in most role-playing games. Shouldn't stop us from criticizing them though. Developers have the ability to at the very least add a bit more depth. I don't remember many people using this to defend Baldur's Gate 1 and it's awful fetch quests, and if someone did, the response was other games have done better already and raised the bar.

I've never been a fan of double standards either.

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+)

First off, I'm going to assume that the playthrough in which you had those skills was not your first, and you probably planned it out to have a bit of a "power-gamey" experience. Compared to Fallout 3, where just about anyone receives enough skill points to max a few skills early on, and someone who isn't even powergaming can max most of the useful skills by the end.

And second, that's pretty much as broken as Fallout 2 gets. Fallout 3 already has people who have figured out how to max all the stats and skills without hacks. That's beyond broken.

Plus, why is a mistake or flaw in an older game not still subject to criticism?

Unlike Gifted?

Trait? And in Fallout 2 it made for a very bumpy beginning with the extra hit all your skills took. It still was pretty overpowered though, I won't argue that.

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

No....many of them are "useless" because the benefit they provide is worth so much less than other perks. Take for instance any of the radiation related perks. Rads are such a non-issue, because radiation poisoning deals so little "damage" and rad away is abundant, that you'd be silly to waste a perk. Add in the joke perks like Mysterious Stranger and it makes things worse.

Ultimately though, the perks can really be taken by just about anybody. Instead of being additional ways to differentiate and build your character like in the originals, now they're just a buffet anyone can grab anything from. They needed a lot more restrictions on a lot of perks, a la the originals.

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

Still not seeing it. And even if that was absolutely stupendous, it's still outweighed by all the idiocy, namely Moira, Burke, "Steel be with you", "I can't believe they're not druids from Tamriel!", vampires, supervillians, and more heaps of Bethesda "Wouldn't it be freaking cool if..." stuff.

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

The two sort of go hand in hand. If the game or world is "breaking it's own rules" as much as Fallout 3 combined with an inconsistent tone and general thoughtlessness from the designers, it's kind of hard to establish any kind of atmosphere.

As for locations, I know you won't like this answer, but honestly,the individual locations really aren't very atmospheric for the most part. Some of them are, like Fort Constantine, the Museum of Technology, and Andale. The rest of them are usually hack-festivals with a little backstory. Take the Dunwich Building. That seems to be a big hit among those who liked Fallout 3. I wasn't feeling the atmosphere. Heck, I thought it was way too forced with the Lovecraft reference and it amounted to another dark place filled with Feral Ghouls which got old after 5+ places like that I had visited beforehand.

I mean, part of this problem is that the lack of overall atmosphere bleeds into the locations. Take for instance Baldur's Gate versus Icewind Dale. Icewind Dale's orc caves and the Vale of Shadows are much less developed than Baldur's Gate's dungeons, like the Nashkel mines, but are infinitely more atmospheric because the game overall has a clear tone, takes itself seriously, and isn't breaking verisimilitude for the sake of fun, awesome, or cool. It's hard to be afraid of "the barking demons coming out of the walls" when you have a companion talking about kicking butt with his hamster and other assorted goofiness.

Some people liked Wiz 8.

Them's fightin' words.

You can buy one in the Underworld.

-Assuming of course I went to the Underworld early on.
-Assuming I checked the shops and wasn't distracted by one of the two (perhaps three) quests that were there.
-Assuming I thought 500-1000 caps on a schematic was worth it when I already had the knowledge that money of that quantity could let me buy enough beat up combat shotguns, chinese assault rifles, magnums, and combat armors at Flak and Shrapnel's in Rivet City to repair my arsenal up nicely.
-And assuming I hadn't gone through the back-rooms of the Museum of History before entering Underworld proper and found Lincoln's Repeater, which almost certainly obsoletes the Railway Rifle (and most other weapons for that matter), and had been content with my arsenal's strength.

You could have also looked it up in the wiki.

So I'm at fault for not powergaming to the max and constantly checking the internet to maximize my potential...when I've emphatically stated I was breezing through the game already? Kinda silly, no?

And this would totally defeat your argument for the Railway Rifle as well. With full knowledge, going and getting weapons like Old Painless, Lincoln's Repeater, The Kneecapper, The Terrible Shotgun, A-23's Plasma Rifle, Firelance, Alien Blaster and Blackhawk could happen as soon as you got the Railway Rife, if not sooner. With full knowledge, then a powergamer will seek out the absolute best weapons as early as possible, weapons that destroy the railway rifle.

I don't think you really wanted to open this can of worms.

As it stands, you said that something is shit because you missed an opportunity to acquire it much earlier.

Uhhh, and that's a problem with my argument how? Because my playthrough wasn't aligned perfectly to get the railway rifle at the right time and in the right place? Just because I happened to not stumble upon one of the three (according to the Wiki) schematics before finding a ton of weapons that I found much more useful than the railway rifle means that I'm flat out wrong? Are my impressions somehow worth less than yours or anyone else who happened to get the railway rifle early on?

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

Touche.

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

Minor gripes incoming.

I mean you never really have to step out of one weapon type, and you never seem disadvantaged for it. Fleshy creatures are easily killed by my small guns, and so are robots and power-armored enclave. Again, barring Fallout 2's P90 and gauss weaponry, that wouldn't happen. There were advantages and disadvantages to each combat skill. It seems like Bethesda kind of "balanced" the weapon skills, but not in a good way.

Unless you're melee specialized though, because the repair system really bones them over. Have fun repairing your incredibly quickly degenerating super sledge or ripper with the 5 others in the wasteland. Why you can't use some of the fission batteries,motion servos, and such to repair stuff like that and power armor just seems sloppy.

Minor gripes over.

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.

Okay. I just don't remember anyone calling Ultima 7 a sandbox, Daggerfall a sandbox, or Baldur's Gate a sandbox. I'll take you word for it though.

My sentiments exactly.

I walked into that one....

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?"

Say what? Isn't that the main driving focus behind Gothic, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3? Wandering around finding interesting stuff to do? That's what I do; I try to find the most fun stuff, which isn't diving into monotonous dungeon after dungeon, especially in a game that didn't put much effort into designing good ones. Because without quests,there's only either killing and looting, which becomes boring in the aforementioned games quickly, or exploring an un-reactive and fairly non-interactive world...a hiking simulator as some called Morrowind.

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.

And this is where my problem is with Fallout 3, as a game. You'd agree Fallout's strong points were it's writing, quests, and dialogue, right? And it did them well, right? So by making them the focus of the game, it was a good game. You were doing the good stuff most of the time. You'd probably also agree that Fallout's combat was pretty mediocre. The developers realized that, and didn't make it a focus (or the other way around) and played to their strengths.

That's where I don't get Fallout 3. I think you'd agree that the strongest Fallout 3 was at were during the good side-quests (Replicated Man, Shoot Em In the Head, Vault 101 Part 2). That was what Fallout 3 did well. The thing is, that wasn't the majority of the game. The majority of it, was, as you said,"exploring, looting, and killing". And I don't think they did this so well. Most exploration is about finding more stuff to kill. Killing stuff isn't fun because enemy design (mechanically, not aesthetically....I admit I like the look of a lot of the things...including the radcrabs) is boring,weapon design is mediocre, and dungeons are very poorly designed. If the focus of the game, and the part you'll be spending the most time on is boring/mediocre/bad, doesn't it follow that the game isn't going to be good short of miraculous content elsewhere?

Didn't you just say:

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

I don't have a problem throwing Fallout 3 in a sandbox genre, but I don't get why I can't critique it's individual elements with games outside the narrow scope of the genre as you define it. Any game can have good writing, a consistent setting, balanced gameplay, any action game can have good combat, and any RPG can make good dungeons. These are areas Fallout 3 hinges on, and fails to deliver, and I don't feel like shouting "but it's a sandbox game" absolves it from these mistakes.

To go back to my Mercenaries example, it's fun to get into fights because shooting is solid, vehicular combat is outstanding with a wide range of military machines at your fingertips, and airstrikes are a blast, and open up tons of new gameplay avenues. The fundamentals are good. It's good quality sand in the box to play with.

Whereas Fallout 3 isn't very fun to do the basics. Locations are often copy-paste, fighting is stiff and bland, and looting isn't so fun with the flood of loot Bethesda unleashes upon you. It's like a lot of gravel being mixed into the sandbox. It's no fun to play with.

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.

You know, assuming people's thoughts and playing mind reader based on internet posts is pretty shaky business. For the record, it was a serious of probing questions, which I later clarified in this post. I just wanted some clarification. Plus, playing Internet Detective is a really underhanded kind of arguing tactic; and one that might just come to bite you back. I sure turn it against you, but I can't say the same for the other guy's arguing against you. I'm sure they'll have a field day digging up old posts out of context. Might want to close this door quick. Just a word of friendly advice.

Not that I wouldn't mind this becoming the most commented on article on the Codex...can you say e-penis++ and petty dickwad+++++?

Plus, it's pretty poor logic. Skepticism before playing and a result of not enjoying the game doesn't imply that my skepticism overrode my objectivity. I mean, that's what ESFers say about NMA. "They were negative and would never let themselves like it even if it was good." You also assume I'm not rational and would let my bias against Bethesda take me over. Though if that was the case, would I be calling some of heir quest design "brilliant" and up there with the best of them?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

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.

Yes and no. It does assume a good deal of CRPG experience because this is the Codex, but it does take into account all CRPGs that have been made to date. It's just instead of comparing it to the mean/median CRPG to be good, I hold it to higher standards. Sure, you could go worse than Fallout 3, but is it that much to ask for elements/expectations/standards that have been around for a decade or more to be more than just barely met?

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.

Maybe. I still think that my argument about it being filled with relatively mediocre content for the most part, and that being the content the player will experience the most, definitely still rings true.

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

Wrong

I threw out numbers casually, VD took them literally. None of us have the total count, we only have our impressions. I won't discount the fact it may be wrong, but until we get a comprehensive Fallout 3 guide akin to Per's, I think it's too soon.

the radically useless schematic weaponry

Wrong

I'm definitely wrong on the shishkebab on further investigation as it beats the super sledge and is the best melee weapon and easily available early on, but I think the jury is still out on the rest. Whether or not this makes me all wrong on this or only half wrong, I don't know.

the next moment you're talking to actual vampire people

Wrong

Uhhh...unless Bethesda's idiocy rubbed off on me through some sort of radiation coming from the 360, I think I'm right on this one. Vance and the Family all describe having cravings for human blood, and "needing" it. He also says he can't make you a vampire like himself, but can teach you some of the ways of the vampire (the bloodpack perk) after arranging a deal between them and Arefu. Sure, he's not an undead, but they drink blood and have a craving for it. Close enough? Or do we need to get into the nitty gritty of vampire taxonomy? Please tell me we don't....

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

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

I don't know about you, but one instant critical hit when sneaking and undetected is not the same as a stealth kill system like the one in...say...Bloodlines? A stealth kill system rewards stealthy players by quickly, efficiently, and silently eliminating enemies. Bethesda's method often means it's running time no matter what and makes stealth devolve into a goofy series of hit and run.

however I'm afraid it descends into a clunky diatribe which feels sprayed together - like a Jackson Pollock of gripes.

Except I'm not being fawned over by the art community for fighting the kitsch. I need a Clement Greenberg here....

 

[DarkUnderlord]

however I'm afraid it descends into a clunky diatribe which feels sprayed together - like a Jackson Pollock of gripes.

Except I'm not being fawned over by the art community for fighting the kitsch. I need a Clement Greenberg here....

... and for the record, I'm the one that came up with the title and intro. Edward just called it his "Fallout 3 Review" which was a pretty boring title to be honest. I also had to take into account that we're expecting to post at least three Fallout 3 reviews here (I'd had offers for five at the time, including Chefe's and Edward's) and I didn't want to keep having "Fallout 3 Review by X" (assuming we decided to post them all). So it was a little spice and variety to light up your lives k, without taking it too literally.

 

[St. Toxic]

Wishful thinking?

Denial? :vaultdweller:

 

[Twinfalls]

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

Wrong

I threw out numbers casually, VD took them literally. None of us have the total count, we only have our impressions. I won't discount the fact it may be wrong, but until we get a comprehensive Fallout 3 guide akin to Per's, I think it's too soon.

You were wrong. Mmmkay?

the radically useless schematic weaponry

Wrong

I'm definitely wrong on the shishkebab on further investigation as it beats the super sledge and is the best melee weapon and easily available early on, but I think the jury is still out on the rest. Whether or not this makes me all wrong on this or only half wrong, I don't know.

And the bottle cap mine.

You were wrong.

the next moment you're talking to actual vampire people

Wrong

Uhhh...unless Bethesda's idiocy rubbed off on me through some sort of radiation coming from the 360, I think I'm right on this one. Vance and the Family all describe having cravings for human blood, and "needing" it. He also says he can't make you a vampire like himself, but can teach you some of the ways of the vampire (the bloodpack perk) after arranging a deal between them and Arefu. Sure, he's not an undead, but they drink blood and have a craving for it. Close enough? Or do we need to get into the nitty gritty of vampire taxonomy? Please tell me we don't....

They weren't 'actual vampire people'. They are a cult led by a nutter with a vampire fetish. Yes, they are not undead. Not hurt by sun. Do not have superhuman strength. Do not live forever. etc etc.

It's goofy stuff to be sure, most probably Emil Pagliawaglia trying to be 'dark' in line with his work on Oblivion. Yet it still gives you choice - the cult leader is helping them in a way as they are cannibals otherwise. But he is inflicting his vampire fantasies onto them and demeaning them.

This is very distinct to 'actual vampire people'. Once again, you rushed in with glib dismissals, based probably on second-hand evidence.

You were wrong.

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

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

I don't know about you, but one instant critical hit when sneaking and undetected is not the same as a stealth kill system

Only you didn't mention this when bagging stealth as being more uselessness. And Candy is for dorks.

however I'm afraid it descends into a clunky diatribe which feels sprayed together - like a Jackson Pollock of gripes.

Except I'm not being fawned over by the art community for fighting the kitsch. I need a Clement Greenberg here....

Hey, you're being fawned over by the new Codexers! Sure, no million dollar sales, canapes or arty babes, but that's gotta count for something!

 

[Shagnak]

It's goofy stuff to be sure, most probably Emil Pagliawaglia trying to be 'dark' in line with his work on Oblivion. Yet it still gives you choice - the cult leader is helping them in a way as they are cannibals otherwise. But he is inflicting his vampire fantasies onto them and demeaning them.

Actually, as soon as I got to the guts of that quest I couldn't help but groan inwardly. I hated it. It felt like it had been transplanted directly from Oblivion and was overall pretty unconvincing to me.

It's a pity; some of the quests piqued my interest (e.g. the android one), but mostly they suffered from some inherent dumbness. The "vampire" one was a low point for me, only rivalled by parts of the main quest.

Still, I got my money's worth out of the game. I enjoyed it as an exploration game, and it pulled off a fully sustained 3D post-apoc environment better than, well, anything so far (we're not exactly spoiled for choice there I guess). Can't help but feel that Morrowind pulled off a more convincing, considered, and cohesive sandbox world though, despite having less of the hallowed "C&C".

I guess "avoid the MQ and a significant number of quests" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement from me. But it's a strange beast - like a lot of people I can very easily be quite scathing about aspects (after all, it is full of big chunks of stupid), but overall I don't regret the experience.

They needed someone to pull back some of the over-indulgence. The over use of slo mo gore. Misfiring humour. Not fulfilling the potential of some prime opportunities (e.g. Dunwich building), yet completely overdoing others (the final assault with the big-ass robot, the dull intro, the fucking house that you can get all too easily thus reducing some "survival game" potential. etc etc.)

Oh well. I honestly think it could have been a whole lot worse.

 

[Longshanks]

I don't know about you, but one instant critical hit when sneaking and undetected is not the same as a stealth kill system

Only you didn't mention this when bagging stealth as being more uselessness.

He didn't?

Plus, stealth is tedious and doesn't bring any rewards of fun. Bethesda could have gone a long way to making stealth more fun by implementing some sort of stealth kill system (outside of one high level perk to disable robots) like Bloodlines did. It makes things much more interactive, differentiates gameplay between characters, and gives the player a reward for sneaking beyond just a free critical hit or avoiding Bethesda's mounds of enemies.

Nor was it even cited as the biggest problem with FO3's stealth play:

The ultimate problem about stealth however is that it isn't very fun, nor very reliable. When I tried to sneak through one of the myriad Metro tunnels in downtown DC I would often be at the mercy of enemy placement, as one narrow part with an enemy smack-dab in the middle would sink my dreams of being Sam Fischer/Solid Snake in a post apocalyptic wasteland as there was little to nothing I could do, even with the addition of a Stealth Boy.

More regrettable glibness in hurried defence of Bethesda? :wink:


Ed seems capable and ready to defend his own review, just have a thing against factually incorrect snarking.

 

[Naked Ninja]

That link to Ed's post on ITS is fairly telling. It has a lot of what his review had in it...just with the words "seems" or "I heard" or "looks like" thrown in everywhere.

Fairly easy to see he reached a conclusion before playing the game and then just went forward from there.

Take this for instance :

Uhhh...unless Bethesda's idiocy rubbed off on me through some sort of radiation coming from the 360, I think I'm right on this one. Vance and the Family all describe having cravings for human blood, and "needing" it. He also says he can't make you a vampire like himself, but can teach you some of the ways of the vampire (the bloodpack perk) after arranging a deal between them and Arefu.

You are wrong Edward. The leader himself tells you he is aware that they aren't "real" classic horror vampires. Most of the "family" struggle to remember the lines of the "vampire code", like it's just something they wrote down and tried to memorize to fit in with Vance.

The whole thing is just a way for outcasts to feel like they have a group to fit into, an identity, and this comes across quite plainly. You're filtering it through your prejudice.

Still, I got my money's worth out of the game. I enjoyed it as an exploration game, and it pulled off a fully sustained 3D post-apoc environment better than, well, anything so far (we're not exactly spoiled for choice there I guess). Can't help but feel that Morrowind pulled off a more convincing, considered, and cohesive sandbox world though, despite having less of the hallowed "C&C".

Agree with Shagnak. If you want to compare it to only 1 or 2 RPGs out of the entire genre, well, good luck to you. But taken over the entire spectrum it ranks up in the top 30% for me. The kind of attitudes I've seen in this thread, implying that it as so bad it made people physically ill, well, I feel sorry for those people, they must get an "acceptable" RPG once every century.

 

[Longshanks]

Fairly easy to see he reached a conclusion before playing the game and then just went forward from there.

Only viewed through prejudice. Not a great stretch at all to conclude, after reading Ed's ITS post and his review, that he had some solid info pre-playing, meaning his opinion before and after playing were somewhat similar.

That's even ignoring the fact his ITS post was not an opinion, but more of a "hey guys, I've heard/read all this negative stuff about the game, but some people seem to like it, what's good about it, should i bother playing it?"

The whole thing is just a way for outcasts to feel like they have a group to fit into, an identity, and this comes across quite plainly. You're filtering it through your prejudice.

Yes, clearly prejudice is the only rational explanation. Not entirely sure whether it's Ed's or yours showing here.

Agree with Shagnak. If you want to compare it to only 1 or 2 RPGs out of the entire genre, well, good luck to you.

Isn't that how VD came to the conclusion that it's a good game? (j/k)

But taken over the entire spectrum it ranks up in the top 30% for me. The kind of attitudes I've seen in this thread, implying that it as so bad it made people physically ill, well, I feel sorry for those people, they must get an "acceptable" RPG once every century.

Haven't noticed the "physically ill" comments, most of those not overly impressed by the game have described it as mediocre (Ed certainly did), but I'm sure whatever hyperbole you want to use is perfectly justified in your mission to marginalise those who dislike it as prejudiced and unreasoning. Don't worry, I feel sorry for those who don't enjoy the same games as me too, the world would be a much better place if everyone shared my views exactly.

 

[Beans00]

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.

Did we play the same Bloodlines? That almost never happened, mostly because both intimidate and seduction were niche skills compared to the might of domination and persuasion. Sure, it happened in some instances, let getting the explosives back fromthe gangbangers, but more often than not, that didn't happen. Even the first real dialogue had the option of taking the guy's money,having him give you his watch, or luring him to the alley for a snack. And there were many instances were persuasion could do things domination couldn't, and vice versa.

Bad? Or standard RPG fare?

your gay

Both? I mean, yeah, standard "go here, kill stuff, fetch this" quests are by most means the norm in most role-playing games. Shouldn't stop us from criticizing them though. Developers have the ability to at the very least add a bit more depth. I don't remember many people using this to defend Baldur's Gate 1 and it's awful fetch quests, and if someone did, the response was other games have done better already and raised the bar.

I've never been a fan of double standards either.

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+)

First off, I'm going to assume that the playthrough in which you had those skills was not your first, and you probably planned it out to have a bit of a "power-gamey" experience. Compared to Fallout 3, where just about anyone receives enough skill points to max a few skills early on, and someone who isn't even powergaming can max most of the useful skills by the end.

And second, that's pretty much as broken as Fallout 2 gets. Fallout 3 already has people who have figured out how to max all the stats and skills without hacks. That's beyond broken.

Plus, why is a mistake or flaw in an older game not still subject to criticism?

Unlike Gifted?

Trait? And in Fallout 2 it made for a very bumpy beginning with the extra hit all your skills took. It still was pretty overpowered though, I won't argue that.

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

No....many of them are "useless" because the benefit they provide is worth so much less than other perks. Take for instance any of the radiation related perks. Rads are such a non-issue, because radiation poisoning deals so little "damage" and rad away is abundant, that you'd be silly to waste a perk. Add in the joke perks like Mysterious Stranger and it makes things worse.

Ultimately though, the perks can really be taken by just about anybody. Instead of being additional ways to differentiate and build your character like in the originals, now they're just a buffet anyone can grab anything from. They needed a lot more restrictions on a lot of perks, a la the originals.

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

Still not seeing it. And even if that was absolutely stupendous, it's still outweighed by all the idiocy, namely Moira, Burke, "Steel be with you", "I can't believe they're not druids from Tamriel!", vampires, supervillians, and more heaps of Bethesda "Wouldn't it be freaking cool if..." stuff.

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

The two sort of go hand in hand. If the game or world is "breaking it's own rules" as much as Fallout 3 combined with an inconsistent tone and general thoughtlessness from the designers, it's kind of hard to establish any kind of atmosphere.

As for locations, I know you won't like this answer, but honestly,the individual locations really aren't very atmospheric for the most part. Some of them are, like Fort Constantine, the Museum of Technology, and Andale. The rest of them are usually hack-festivals with a little backstory. Take the Dunwich Building. That seems to be a big hit among those who liked Fallout 3. I wasn't feeling the atmosphere. Heck, I thought it was way too forced with the Lovecraft reference and it amounted to another dark place filled with Feral Ghouls which got old after 5+ places like that I had visited beforehand.

I mean, part of this problem is that the lack of overall atmosphere bleeds into the locations. Take for instance Baldur's Gate versus Icewind Dale. Icewind Dale's orc caves and the Vale of Shadows are much less developed than Baldur's Gate's dungeons, like the Nashkel mines, but are infinitely more atmospheric because the game overall has a clear tone, takes itself seriously, and isn't breaking verisimilitude for the sake of fun, awesome, or cool. It's hard to be afraid of "the barking demons coming out of the walls" when you have a companion talking about kicking butt with his hamster and other assorted goofiness.

Some people liked Wiz 8.

Them's fightin' words.

You can buy one in the Underworld.

-Assuming of course I went to the Underworld early on.
-Assuming I checked the shops and wasn't distracted by one of the two (perhaps three) quests that were there.
-Assuming I thought 500-1000 caps on a schematic was worth it when I already had the knowledge that money of that quantity could let me buy enough beat up combat shotguns, chinese assault rifles, magnums, and combat armors at Flak and Shrapnel's in Rivet City to repair my arsenal up nicely.
-And assuming I hadn't gone through the back-rooms of the Museum of History before entering Underworld proper and found Lincoln's Repeater, which almost certainly obsoletes the Railway Rifle (and most other weapons for that matter), and had been content with my arsenal's strength.

You could have also looked it up in the wiki.

So I'm at fault for not powergaming to the max and constantly checking the internet to maximize my potential...when I've emphatically stated I was breezing through the game already? Kinda silly, no?

And this would totally defeat your argument for the Railway Rifle as well. With full knowledge, going and getting weapons like Old Painless, Lincoln's Repeater, The Kneecapper, The Terrible Shotgun, A-23's Plasma Rifle, Firelance, Alien Blaster and Blackhawk could happen as soon as you got the Railway Rife, if not sooner. With full knowledge, then a powergamer will seek out the absolute best weapons as early as possible, weapons that destroy the railway rifle.

I don't think you really wanted to open this can of worms.

As it stands, you said that something is shit because you missed an opportunity to acquire it much earlier.

Uhhh, and that's a problem with my argument how? Because my playthrough wasn't aligned perfectly to get the railway rifle at the right time and in the right place? Just because I happened to not stumble upon one of the three (according to the Wiki) schematics before finding a ton of weapons that I found much more useful than the railway rifle means that I'm flat out wrong? Are my impressions somehow worth less than yours or anyone else who happened to get the railway rifle early on?

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

Touche.

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

Minor gripes incoming.

I mean you never really have to step out of one weapon type, and you never seem disadvantaged for it. Fleshy creatures are easily killed by my small guns, and so are robots and power-armored enclave. Again, barring Fallout 2's P90 and gauss weaponry, that wouldn't happen. There were advantages and disadvantages to each combat skill. It seems like Bethesda kind of "balanced" the weapon skills, but not in a good way.

Unless you're melee specialized though, because the repair system really bones them over. Have fun repairing your incredibly quickly degenerating super sledge or ripper with the 5 others in the wasteland. Why you can't use some of the fission batteries,motion servos, and such to repair stuff like that and power armor just seems sloppy.

Minor gripes over.

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.

Okay. I just don't remember anyone calling Ultima 7 a sandbox, Daggerfall a sandbox, or Baldur's Gate a sandbox. I'll take you word for it though.

My sentiments exactly.

I walked into that one....

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?"

Say what? Isn't that the main driving focus behind Gothic, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3? Wandering around finding interesting stuff to do? That's what I do; I try to find the most fun stuff, which isn't diving into monotonous dungeon after dungeon, especially in a game that didn't put much effort into designing good ones. Because without quests,there's only either killing and looting, which becomes boring in the aforementioned games quickly, or exploring an un-reactive and fairly non-interactive world...a hiking simulator as some called Morrowind.

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.

And this is where my problem is with Fallout 3, as a game. You'd agree Fallout's strong points were it's writing, quests, and dialogue, right? And it did them well, right? So by making them the focus of the game, it was a good game. You were doing the good stuff most of the time. You'd probably also agree that Fallout's combat was pretty mediocre. The developers realized that, and didn't make it a focus (or the other way around) and played to their strengths.

That's where I don't get Fallout 3. I think you'd agree that the strongest Fallout 3 was at were during the good side-quests (Replicated Man, Shoot Em In the Head, Vault 101 Part 2). That was what Fallout 3 did well. The thing is, that wasn't the majority of the game. The majority of it, was, as you said,"exploring, looting, and killing". And I don't think they did this so well. Most exploration is about finding more stuff to kill. Killing stuff isn't fun because enemy design (mechanically, not aesthetically....I admit I like the look of a lot of the things...including the radcrabs) is boring,weapon design is mediocre, and dungeons are very poorly designed. If the focus of the game, and the part you'll be spending the most time on is boring/mediocre/bad, doesn't it follow that the game isn't going to be good short of miraculous content elsewhere?

Didn't you just say:

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

I don't have a problem throwing Fallout 3 in a sandbox genre, but I don't get why I can't critique it's individual elements with games outside the narrow scope of the genre as you define it. Any game can have good writing, a consistent setting, balanced gameplay, any action game can have good combat, and any RPG can make good dungeons. These are areas Fallout 3 hinges on, and fails to deliver, and I don't feel like shouting "but it's a sandbox game" absolves it from these mistakes.

To go back to my Mercenaries example, it's fun to get into fights because shooting is solid, vehicular combat is outstanding with a wide range of military machines at your fingertips, and airstrikes are a blast, and open up tons of new gameplay avenues. The fundamentals are good. It's good quality sand in the box to play with.

Whereas Fallout 3 isn't very fun to do the basics. Locations are often copy-paste, fighting is stiff and bland, and looting isn't so fun with the flood of loot Bethesda unleashes upon you. It's like a lot of gravel being mixed into the sandbox. It's no fun to play with.

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.

You know, assuming people's thoughts and playing mind reader based on internet posts is pretty shaky business. For the record, it was a serious of probing questions, which I later clarified in this post. I just wanted some clarification. Plus, playing Internet Detective is a really underhanded kind of arguing tactic; and one that might just come to bite you back. I sure turn it against you, but I can't say the same for the other guy's arguing against you. I'm sure they'll have a field day digging up old posts out of context. Might want to close this door quick. Just a word of friendly advice.

Not that I wouldn't mind this becoming the most commented on article on the Codex...can you say e-penis++ and petty dickwad+++++?

Plus, it's pretty poor logic. Skepticism before playing and a result of not enjoying the game doesn't imply that my skepticism overrode my objectivity. I mean, that's what ESFers say about NMA. "They were negative and would never let themselves like it even if it was good." You also assume I'm not rational and would let my bias against Bethesda take me over. Though if that was the case, would I be calling some of heir quest design "brilliant" and up there with the best of them?

 

[Naked Ninja]

Not a great stretch at all to conclude, after reading Ed's ITS post and his review, that he had some solid info pre-playing, meaning his opinion before and after playing were somewhat similar.

Solid info...except for actual gameplay experience. Awesome. So all he really had was a collection of opinions he agreed with, picked from the spectrum to match his expectations.

That's even ignoring the fact his ITS post was not an opinion, but more of a "hey guys, I've heard/read all this negative stuff about the game, but some people seem to like it, what's good about it, should i bother playing it?"

Uh-huh, right, he seems totally objective there.

Yes, clearly prejudice is the only rational explanation.

Glad we agree.

Not entirely sure whether it's Ed's or yours showing here.

No, it's Ed's. I didn't post a large negative post about F3 before actually trying it for myself, I kept an open mind.

Haven't noticed the "physically ill" comments

Selective reading then.

but I'm sure whatever hyperbole you want to use is perfectly justified in your mission to marginalise those who dislike it as prejudiced and unreasoning

Lol, how very martyr-ey of you. You should gang together to protest against those who want to marginalise your poor, suffering kindred. :emo tear:

I like the way you accuse me of hyperbole then state it is my "mission to marginalise all those who...". The irony makes me smile.

Don't worry, I feel sorry for those who don't enjoy the same games as me too, the world would be a much better place if everyone shared my views exactly.

Strawman, I wasn't saying I feel sorry for those who disagree with my opinion, I said I feel sorry for anyone who can't enjoy any CRPG that comes out which doesn't meet the standards of their top 2 favorite past CRPGs. Gotta be a sad, boring life for a CRPG gamer.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Beans what the fuck are you doing? Either add you comment or don't fucking post. Enough with the useless huge quotes, it's not like this thread isn't filled with that anyway.

 

[Longshanks]

Solid info...except for actual gameplay experience. Awesome. So all he really had was a collection of opinions he agreed with, picked from the spectrum to match his expectations.

Yeah, pre-play views do have this inherent flaw of no gameplay experience. But, they are necessary to distinguish which games we'll buy and which we'll not. Sometimes, having played the game, our pre-play expectations are confounded (positively or negatively), or confirmed, as they largely seemed to be in Ed's case. A reasonable explanation for similarity of pre and post play views could be solid pre-play info, or a well-developed knowledge of the game's developer (FO3 is not so different to M&O really). An uncharitable explanation would be to invent a motive for the pre-play comments and make accusations of prejudice.

I would think that, rather than inventing or looking to intuit motive, it would be better just to argue the points of criticism.

Uh-huh, right, he seems totally objective there.

I can't really say whether he was prejudiced against Fallout 3 for injustices to the series or not, he claims not, but I definitely do not think the prejudice is "clear" or the only reason to have less than positive pre-play expectations.

Not entirely sure whether it's Ed's or yours showing here.

No, it's Ed's. I didn't post a large negative post about F3 before actually trying it for myself, I kept an open mind.

My quote there refers to your conclusion that because Ed, after playing the game, decided that The Family were vampires, means that he was blinded by prejudice. To me that seemed one mighty leap, and possibly indicative of a little prejudice of your own.

I like the way you accuse me of hyperbole then state it is my "mission to marginalise all those who...". The irony makes me smile.

Your welcome.

Don't worry, I feel sorry for those who don't enjoy the same games as me too, the world would be a much better place if everyone shared my views exactly.

Strawman, I wasn't saying I feel sorry for those who disagree with my opinion, I said I feel sorry for anyone who can't enjoy any CRPG that comes out which doesn't meet the standards of their top 2 favorite past CRPGs. Gotta be a sad, boring life for a CRPG gamer.

Strawman right back at ya. I'm not sure anyone has claimed complete dissatisfaction with Fallout 3 solely because it's not in their top 2 RPGs. The inference in your comments here is that Fallout 3 is a good game, and only those being unreasonable will not enjoy it, so no, I don't think my previous response was a strawman. Sure, I've taken a bit of a leap to reach that conclusion, but you seem happy enough to ascribe motive to others based on even flimsier material.


By they way, I read your Fallout 3 impressions on your blog. You seemed very taken with the repair system. One may even say disproportionately fulsome in your praise, for what is a rudimentary and hardly uncommon mechanic. I'm not even sure it was objective, :gasp:. If I were to roleplay as Gareth, I may leap to the conclusion that this has something to do with a lengthy discussion you had about it pre-play, extolling its virtues and defending it from negativity.

 

[Twinfalls]

He didn't?

Plus, stealth is tedious and doesn't bring any rewards of fun. Bethesda could have gone a long way to making stealth more fun by implementing some sort of stealth kill system (outside of one high level perk to disable robots) like Bloodlines did. It makes things much more interactive, differentiates gameplay between characters, and gives the player a reward for sneaking beyond just a free critical hit or avoiding Bethesda's mounds of enemies.

So? At best he misleads, then contradicts himself. He says there's no benefit to stealth outside the robot perk. Wrong, there are stealth kills. Chucking in the words 'a free critical hit' afterward does not get him out of trouble.

Nor was it even cited as the biggest problem with FO3's stealth play:

Did I say it was? It was glib and misleading.

More regrettable glibness in hurried defence of Bethesda? :wink:

More feeble insertion of yourself into an argument?
:wink: :wink:

 

[Naked Ninja]

An uncharitable explanation would be to invent a motive for the pre-play comments and make accusations of prejudice.

Uncharitable? Or just a high level of reading comprehension. The negativity is plain in his post.

I would think that, rather than inventing or looking to intuit motive, it would be better just to argue the points of criticism.

Not riding that train, it's long and boring and goes nowhere. VD is welcome to it, with my blessing.

I definitely do not think the prejudice is "clear"

I do.

or the only reason to have less than positive pre-play expectations.

Pre-play expectations imply bias. Which was my point.

My quote there refers to your conclusion that because Ed, after playing the game, decided that The Family were vampires, means that he was blinded by prejudice.

It does when the NPC clearly states in the game that they aren't when you ask him. Perhaps Ed just assumed instead of bothering to dig deeper.

To me that seemed one mighty leap

No, simple logic, 1+1=2

I'm not sure anyone has claimed complete dissatisfaction with Fallout 3 solely because it's not in their top 2 RPGs.

Oh yes? Ed hasn't been defending his right to call it crap if it doesn't trump the 10 year old game which he claims is his favorite RPG in the review?

Doesn't matter whether they say it explicitly or not, that's what they are doing.

The inference in your comments here is that Fallout 3 is a good game, and only those being unreasonable will not enjoy it

No, the inference was that people are trying WAY too hard to find flaw, so as to fit their bias. It comes across as completely lacking in objectivity.

Sure, I've taken a bit of a leap to reach that conclusion

Yep.

By they way, I read your Fallout 3 impressions on your blog.

Cool, and welcome.

You seemed very taken with the repair system.

I liked it, yes.

One may even say disproportionately fulsome in your praise, for what is a rudimentary and hardly uncommon mechanic.

One might, if one were to regularly use the word "fulsome".

However, let's go with this. Since it's not uncommon, please list for me the CRPGs using this mechanic.

I'm not even sure it was objective

No, it wasn't, and I made no pretenses to it. I said it was a first impression, so....

lengthy discussion you had about it pre-play, extolling its virtues and defending it from negativity

Eh? Link with proof please.

 

[Hazelnut]

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

Wrong

I threw out numbers casually, VD took them literally. None of us have the total count, we only have our impressions. I won't discount the fact it may be wrong, but until we get a comprehensive Fallout 3 guide akin to Per's, I think it's too soon.

You were wrong. Mmmkay?

Fancy supporting your assertion?

It's goofy stuff to be sure, most probably Emil Pagliawaglia trying to be 'dark' in line with his work on Oblivion. Yet it still gives you choice - the cult leader is helping them in a way as they are cannibals otherwise. But he is inflicting his vampire fantasies onto them and demeaning them.

Actually, as soon as I got to the guts of that quest I couldn't help but groan inwardly. I hated it. It felt like it had been transplanted directly from Oblivion and was overall pretty unconvincing to me.

It's a pity; some of the quests piqued my interest (e.g. the android one), but mostly they suffered from some inherent dumbness. The "vampire" one was a low point for me, only rivalled by parts of the main quest.

Still, I got my money's worth out of the game. I enjoyed it as an exploration game, and it pulled off a fully sustained 3D post-apoc environment better than, well, anything so far (we're not exactly spoiled for choice there I guess). Can't help but feel that Morrowind pulled off a more convincing, considered, and cohesive sandbox world though, despite having less of the hallowed "C&C".

I guess "avoid the MQ and a significant number of quests" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement from me. But it's a strange beast - like a lot of people I can very easily be quite scathing about aspects (after all, it is full of big chunks of stupid), but overall I don't regret the experience.

That pretty well sums it up for me as well. Nicely put Shags.

They needed someone to pull back some of the over-indulgence. The over use of slo mo gore. Misfiring humour. Not fulfilling the potential of some prime opportunities (e.g. Dunwich building), yet completely overdoing others (the final assault with the big-ass robot, the dull intro, the fucking house that you can get all too easily thus reducing some "survival game" potential. etc etc.)

Oh well. I honestly think it could have been a whole lot worse.

What they needed was for Todd to get promoted or fired. It's the direction that he took the game (as Director) which should surprise none here. I imagine that the glimmers of good amongst the mediocre were not directed to be as such. They were just someone's stuff that got thrown in the pot along with anything else.

The only realistic hope is that Todd gets a promotion so he no longer plays a role in game development, because I don't see him getting fired after two finacially successful games.


Enjoying the VD & ERM show a lot, both of you have good points to make. Not enjoying the VD & DU show so much... I'm as anal retentive and pedantic as the next codexer, but shit DU, when did you turn into such a boring, monotonous, douche?

 

[Twinfalls]

Fancy supporting your assertion?

There are plenty of skill checks other than 'gimme more money'. VD has pointed this out already. No, I'm not going to list them or refer to some wiki. It's plain to see if you play the game substantially.

 

[Alex]

Edward, I just wanted to comment a few points. I am sure VD can say this better than me, (and probably will, in a long reply going through each point you made), but maybe this is faster.

You could have also looked it up in the wiki.

So I'm at fault for not powergaming to the max and constantly checking the internet to maximize my potential...when I've emphatically stated I was breezing through the game already? Kinda silly, no?

And this would totally defeat your argument for the Railway Rifle as well. With full knowledge, going and getting weapons like Old Painless, Lincoln's Repeater, The Kneecapper, The Terrible Shotgun, A-23's Plasma Rifle, Firelance, Alien Blaster and Blackhawk could happen as soon as you got the Railway Rife, if not sooner. With full knowledge, then a powergamer will seek out the absolute best weapons as early as possible, weapons that destroy the railway rifle.

I don't think you really wanted to open this can of worms.

As it stands, you said that something is shit because you missed an opportunity to acquire it much earlier.

Uhhh, and that's a problem with my argument how? Because my playthrough wasn't aligned perfectly to get the railway rifle at the right time and in the right place? Just because I happened to not stumble upon one of the three (according to the Wiki) schematics before finding a ton of weapons that I found much more useful than the railway rifle means that I'm flat out wrong? Are my impressions somehow worth less than yours or anyone else who happened to get the railway rifle early on?

Right here, you seem to assume some bad will from VD. I think that all he was trying to say is that you should have checked in the wiki before your review. That you should have made sure that the schematics are useless before saying so in your review. Your experience shows that, depending on which path a character chooses, the schematics can be more or less useful. While this is a fault of the game, it is a lesser one, and it is really hard to get rid of this kind of problem in open games like this.

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.

Okay. I just don't remember anyone calling Ultima 7 a sandbox, Daggerfall a sandbox, or Baldur's Gate a sandbox. I'll take you word for it though.

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?"

Say what? Isn't that the main driving focus behind Gothic, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3? Wandering around finding interesting stuff to do? That's what I do; I try to find the most fun stuff, which isn't diving into monotonous dungeon after dungeon, especially in a game that didn't put much effort into designing good ones. Because without quests,there's only either killing and looting, which becomes boring in the aforementioned games quickly, or exploring an un-reactive and fairly non-interactive world...a hiking simulator as some called Morrowind.

If I get the correct idea of what sandbox means, then I think the biggest difference between a normal rpg and a sandbox one isn't even how much time one spends doing quests, but on the focus of the game's story. I am having some trouble defining it, but I think the term cinematic fits well here. For example, in PST, there is a single moment where TNO is able to learn and cast a curse on another character. The player isn't able to go casting curses in order to blackmail other characters. It is a single moment, where it makes sense in the story. This shows how a story driven, non sandbox game works with plots.

On the other hand, take most towns in Ultima 7. Most NPCs are semi generic supporting cast. Yet they are all given some personality, even if they have no importance to the story. There is a finite number of these npcs, and a finite number of dialogue lines. A few even have unique quests and actions available to them. Yet, because they don't stand out, because it is the player who needs to pry into their lives to get to the unique content, because much of the conversation, while interesting, seems like chit chat. Talking with these npcs work as a kind of exploration.

The end result doesn't look like the player is in a movie where he needs to escape from new York or save private Ryan. It feels like the player is in a normal town (as far as a fantasy medieval town can be normal) with normal people in it. While the game has a story that the player needs to follow (in an exact order, by the way), there is a lot to explore in the towns, talking to the people and finding what they are like, what they want.

In fallout, the people and their stories seem much more centered on the storyline. While the player is given a lot of choice in who to speak and what to do in the quests, the actions that the player can take in deciding any one quest and what he finds exploring each town is much more driven by the narrative. Even subquests inside a town are frequently tied to the narrative of the town, like shady sands, where most quests show how the small community has trouble surviving.

In daggerfall, everything is made so that the player seems to be inside a world rather than a story. Countless small, irrelevant cities are strewn about the huge territory, giving the impression of a real world. Many of the quests are randomly generated through templates, and although it gets really repetitive after a while, it allows for the impression that you are exploring a world rather than going along with a story. I have heard that some quite awesome features that were cut would have made the game even stronger in this department, like having cities under siege and a more involved politics system with the guilds. This would have added even more to the sandbox aspect, making the game world look like it was a living, progressing along history.

Sorry if this got too long, but hopefully these examples help to set the difference between sandbox and non sandbox games.

I don't have a problem throwing Fallout 3 in a sandbox genre, but I don't get why I can't critique it's individual elements with games outside the narrow scope of the genre as you define it. Any game can have good writing, a consistent setting, balanced gameplay, any action game can have good combat, and any RPG can make good dungeons. These are areas Fallout 3 hinges on, and fails to deliver, and I don't feel like shouting "but it's a sandbox game" absolves it from these mistakes.

The problem with comparing things outside of the genre is that it can create completely unreasonable expectations. Games have a limited amount of resources, and sometimes the things that aren't the focus of the game get shafted. Furthermore, features in a game frequently depend on other features also present there. If taken outside of context, they might simply not work well.

In this example, the dialogue is a small part of this kind of game (sandbox rpgs). Comparing it then, to rpgs where it is very important, like fallout, is obviously expecting too much. It would work better to take examples of good dialogue inside the very game of fallout 3, and show how most of it isn't that good, or how the better parts of dialogue aren't where they should be (main quest). That way, instead of criticizing Bethesda for not being something, you would be criticizing it for not having its priorities straight.

By the way, we obviously can criticize Bethesda, and most other developers, for not being something. I sure would like to live in a world where we had a handful of developers doing varied, innovative games full of gameplay, like in the old days. But isn't this already the point of the Codex? :D No need to insert it in every review.

To go back to my Mercenaries example, it's fun to get into fights because shooting is solid, vehicular combat is outstanding with a wide range of military machines at your fingertips, and airstrikes are a blast, and open up tons of new gameplay avenues. The fundamentals are good. It's good quality sand in the box to play with.

Whereas Fallout 3 isn't very fun to do the basics. Locations are often copy-paste, fighting is stiff and bland, and looting isn't so fun with the flood of loot Bethesda unleashes upon you. It's like a lot of gravel being mixed into the sandbox. It's no fun to play with.

Here we get at the core of the opinion divergence (I think). You separated the meat of the gameplay in fallout, and explained why you didn't find it fun. VD, and other people that had fun with fallout probably found it at least bearable. It probably would be more productive to discuss how or why this part of the game isn't fun (which I think you did to a good extent on your review) and how the other, less important features (the exotic dishes) connect to them.

 

[Fat Dragon]

Alex, you should post more often, you make great posts.

 

[Longshanks]

Plus, stealth is tedious and doesn't bring any rewards of fun. Bethesda could have gone a long way to making stealth more fun by implementing some sort of stealth kill system (outside of one high level perk to disable robots) like Bloodlines did. It makes things much more interactive, differentiates gameplay between characters, and gives the player a reward for sneaking beyond just a free critical hit or avoiding Bethesda's mounds of enemies.

So? At best he misleads, then contradicts himself.

He says there's no benefit to stealth outside the robot perk.

No, he said there is no stealth kill system, other than the robot perk.

Wrong, there are stealth kills. Chucking in the words 'a free critical hit' afterward does not get him out of trouble.

There is a difference between stealth kills and stealth criticals that sometimes result in death. From the review, it seems he wanted stealth insta-kill, not just a moderate damage bonus.

More feeble insertion of yourself into an argument?
:wink: :wink:

Yes :wink:. Will leave it there then, wasn't really looking to defend the review's criticism of stealth play, just pointing out an error.

Not riding that train, it's long and boring and goes nowhere. VD is welcome to it, with my blessing.

Fair enough.

Pre-play expectations imply bias. Which was my point.

Your point seemed a little stronger than that, seeming to suggest that a hard view had already been taken pre-play, and was just followed through to post-play views. Don't we all have pre-play expectations? Doesn't buying or even deciding to play the game imply some kind of expectation or at least hope? These are usually "soft views", easily altered by the actual play experience.

="Naked Ninja"It does when the NPC clearly states in the game that they aren't when you ask him. Perhaps Ed just assumed instead of bothering to dig deeper.

Perhaps you could have asked him how he could have missed it? Or why he still calls them vampires even though they are not an exact copy of Dracula? Rather than jumping to the most negative possible conclusion.

Oh yes? Ed hasn't been defending his right to call it crap if it doesn't trump the 10 year old game which he claims is his favorite RPG in the review?

Not my reading of it. Seemed to be saying it was mediocre because it does little particularly well, and contains plenty of crap.

No, the inference was that people are trying WAY too hard to find flaw, so as to fit their bias. It comes across as completely lacking in objectivity.

I don't know. Maybe they aren't trying hard, but just have different opinions than you. I certainly found many a flaw without too much difficulty. On a personal level, I've not found a sandbox RPG that I've greatly enjoyed, so did not have high expectations of Fallout 3. In the end, I see it as a decent, but disjointed game (better than Oblivion, inferior to Morrowind) that did not align with my tastes. It's quite possible I would have enjoyed it, were I a fan of sandbox RPGs (though even in this select sub-group, of the 6 I've played this decade (G1-3, M&O, FO3), it would come in 5th, 4th at best).

One might, if one were to regularly use the word "fulsome".

It's a word I'd be more likely to use in writing than conversation, but yeah, I use it here and there, almost always in connection with level of praise.

However, let's go with this. Since it's not uncommon, please list for me the CRPGs using this mechanic.

Well, I was meaning the whole deteriorate/repair mechanic. I guess the need to combine weapons or find parts to repair them is much less common. My "roleplaying" was only meant as a bit of fun, your fulsome :wink: praise for something that seemed a minor game element, and not significantly different to the more usual "click and repair", took me a little by surprise, but I don't actually have a problem with it.

 

[Alex]

That link to Ed's post on ITS is fairly telling. It has a lot of what his review had in it...just with the words "seems" or "I heard" or "looks like" thrown in everywhere.

I think you and VD are doing a disservice to Edward here. He explained, both inside and outside of the review, why he arrived to his conclusions. He may have made a few mistakes, but assuming he did so only because he had prejudices is kinda silly. I think that overall this huge discussions had some positive parts, like insights into how a game should be criticized, or what sandbox gameplay means. But assuming things like this seems counterproductive, and makes the person assuming prejudice seem the one who is prejudiced (as it isn't something that can be proved, or argued very well).

Maybe you don't want to go through every point made in the posts like Edward, VD and DU did. But isn't it more productive to try to find where your tastes differ and try to gleam some understanding from there? For example, it seems to me that Edward's negative impressions stem mostly from a dislike of the sandbox gameplay it provides. Maybe by seeing his views on these, we can learn more about what is possible in this kind of game?

Agree with Shagnak. If you want to compare it to only 1 or 2 RPGs out of the entire genre, well, good luck to you. But taken over the entire spectrum it ranks up in the top 30% for me. The kind of attitudes I've seen in this thread, implying that it as so bad it made people physically ill, well, I feel sorry for those people, they must get an "acceptable" RPG once every century.

I wouldn't say I get an acceptable rpg once every century, but I must admit I suffer from this problem. I simply don't find most of what is being produced as AAA rpg titles (and a few other genres too) interesting. Fortunately, there are enough old games I haven't played to last me a long time. Hopefully by then the drought will have ended.

 

[Naked Ninja]

From the review, it seems he wanted stealth insta-kill, not just a moderate damage bonus.

That would be massively overpowered IMHO. F3 has a perk to kill sleeping characters, and I've discovered raiders sleeping in their den, so it seems like at least some use without being overwhelming.

Your point seemed a little stronger than that, seeming to suggest that a hard view had already been taken pre-play, and was just followed through to post-play views.

That was my point. Maybe I should have said strong bias.

Doesn't buying or even deciding to play the game imply some kind of expectation or at least hope?

Nah, on the Codex it is very possible just to be looking for lulz.

Perhaps you could have asked him how he could have missed it?

I could have, but it's part of the dialogue to finish that quest questline. It sounds like he did it and just glossed over everything.

Or why he still calls them vampires even though they are not an exact copy of Dracula?

Because he wants to cry "look, copy-paste from Oblivion!!!1!" maybe?

Not my reading of it.

He quite clearly defends his right to call the game crap if it isn't better than certain 10 year old games.

I don't know.Maybe they aren't trying hard, but just have different opinions than you

No, they are trying REALLY hard. Read the discussion on the rail gun. Dear lord it is tedious and I barely read more than 2 pages.

I guess the need to combine weapons or find parts to repair them is much less common.

Yes, much less.

praise for something that seemed a minor game element, and not significantly different to the more usual "click and repair", took me a little by surprise, but I don't actually have a problem with it.

My praise was because it nicely supports the theme of the setting. It creates a sense of "scavenging through junk" which fits really well in a PA setting. I like theme-supporting mechanics like this, see the blog post I wrote about it.

You can call it a minor element if you want but I do it ALL the time, I'm level 10 and it makes a big difference.

 

[Twinfalls]

Alex, there's more to it going on here. There's enough evidence to suggest Murrow has based his 'review' on a very firm, and very biased preconception. Nothing wrong with making this accusation. Why?

Because knee-jerkism shouldn't get an easy ride. The Codex could become a place where anyone can post anything that bags Bethesda, no matter how poorly composed or flat-out inaccurate, and still get nothing but a chorus of head-nodding approval. This site has gone dangerously close to exactly that.

And where would the fun be in that?

 

[Naked Ninja]

He explained, both inside and outside of the review, why he arrived to his conclusions.

He explained, but his explanations show the same prejudice. It takes pages and pages even to admit to simple mistakes.

I think that overall this huge discussions had some positive parts, like insights into how a game should be criticized, or what sandbox gameplay means.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way Alex, I like your posts, but I disagree about those positive parts. I think everyone participating knew exactly what sandbox gameplay was when the thread started, the people arguing are just doing so because giving even an inch of "territory" to "the enemy" is unacceptable.

It was all wasted breath mate, just like this post. The arguments on what is and isn't a sandbox game is just so that they can continue comparing F3 to F1 and little else. It's all fairly transparent.

Maybe you don't want to go through every point made in the posts like Edward, VD and DU did.

It's not that they made a lot of points. They just make the same boring ones over and over again. DU and Ed aren't going to change their stance. I don't want to get drawn into arguing over the merit of the railway rifle vs chinese assault rifle, I might die of boredom. I just don't have the stamina that VD does.

For example, it seems to me that Edward's negative impressions stem mostly from a dislike of the sandbox gameplay it provides.

Well it seems to me that his negative impression stems from it not being the Fallout he wanted, the Fallout that matches his memories of F1. His review establishes that context quite well.

Maybe by seeing his views on these

I see his view quite clearly man.

 

[Alex]

Twinfalls, NN, maybe this discussion wasn't much worth to anyone but me. Maybe all the hints I got about how to review and judge games is pretty basic, and you already knew about it beforehand. And while I actually understood a little more about what sandbox means (or at least, I think I understood) I think that is pretty basic too.

But if the clash of opinions can give some insight in game design. I may be wrong to assume that Edward's review is (mostly) unbiased. You people speak english better than me, and you probable can see in his phrases things I can't. And I think that people from both sides of the issue assumed bad will from the other side sometimes. But lets suppose that there is no agenda here, and people are simply trying to discuss their views.

Then, by taking a more positive review, like VD's, and a more negative review, like Edward's, one can try to beat one against the other to see why they differ (again, lets assume both are unbiased).For example, I was able to gleam was that the combat and exploration, which seems to make up most of the sandbox gameplay of the game, is kind of a mixed bag. Both reviewers agreed that there were many generic locations and that combat got boring, specially after too many fights. Both also seem to agree that there were some jewels worth exploring around.

The point were they disagree seems to be wether there are enough jewels (or maybe what is a jewel and what isn't) and whether the normal gameplay is worth withstanding so one can get to the jewels. Sure, this is completely subjective. But if they had concentrated the discussion on what made some of the locations worth it, we could have some data to help understand the aesthetics of what makes a location good, and what kind of gameplay can benefit from it.

Maybe I am wrong here, or maybe the discussion would be on a very basic level, and so useless to most. But I think it would still be more useful than pages upon pages where
most arguments go back and forth and get nowhere.

(...snip)
I don't mean this as an insult in any way Alex, I like your posts, (snip...)

Alex, you should post more often, you make great posts.

Wow, it isn't even my birthday or anything.