Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review Edward R Murrow's Dissertation on Fallout 3

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,956
"The difference can't be explained with "oh well, some people suck at shooters, I suppose". "

Here's a simpler explanation: You suck at a the game. And, they are awesome. Harsh but true. Some people are just simply better than others at certain things. *shrug*
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
TEXT RUSH KEKEKEKEKE!

Vault Dweller said:
Basic math suggests that there are 20 "moar money!" checks and 31 "other stuff" checks.

The key phrase being "at least one". Many quests have two or more of these "gimme more" things. Take for instance "Those". You can get the kid to give you his Dad's ammo if you pass a speech check and then bargain the lab coat off of Lesko for another one. There's two in one quest. Or with "The Superhuman Gambit", there were actually two or three speech checks with both the Mayor of the town and the sheriff to get more stuff out of taking care of their problem with the goofballs. Or "The Nuka Cola Challenge", where you can do a speech check on each receiver of the Quantum for more money per bottle.

And outside of the "gimme more", a lot of the speech checks could be condensed easily. Like in "Tenpenny Tower", where the diplomatic route requires doing a lot of speech checks to get citizens to accept the ghouls. There's like 4 or 5 of them clustered in this one quest. Stuff like this is really kind of inflating the abundance of speech checks in Fallout 3.

Not to mention, whenever an important speech check does arise, there's always around two or three equivalent alternatives, sometimes not even involving a skill check, totally devaluing speech. In good role-playing games, my speech powers get me places in dialogue nothing else can take me. I don't suddenly get the choice of a necromancy check against Khergan to convince him he's wrong, along with the choice to read a self-destruct code off a piece of paper I found lying in the chamber before him to instantly win. And I wasn't able to [Gambling] Uhhh.....the odds say you're wrong! to beat the Master. Speech actually matters in other games, and gives the player unique opportunities. In Fallout 3, it just let's you skip more crap.

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

Not even close. The reason it's effective isn't because it's amazing...it's because the game is piss easy. The railway rifle has a max damage potential of 30 and I'm pretty sure it can't be repaired and the ammo is limited, whereas many more weapons have a much greater amount of power, and are easily repaired and fed with ammunition. I mean, if the railway rifle is top 5, just pick up a chinese assault rifle, sniper rifle or a scoped magnum (all with damage potentials over 35) and prepare to be amazed. And they aren't even on the level of brokenness that is the combat shotgun, Lincoln's Repeater, or a plasma rifle. And I haven't even mentioned the "+1" weapons, the Fatman, or the Alien Blaster all of which make an already easy game into a joke.

Looked very decent to me.

Only problem being melee is almost a direct port of Oblivion, so combat is terribly boring in it.

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

I'm not sure I like this line of logic. Are you saying that we shouldn't hold it to any RPG standards because "it's an action game?" Why is it an action game? It's not a very good one in the least, it misses a lot of the fundamentals, and the developers plus mainstream media sure don't think it's one. I doubt Fallout 3 will change how Call of Duty 5 (6?), Gears of War 3, Halo 4, Far Cry 3, Mirror's Edge 2, Resident Evil 5, or Devil May Cry 5 will play, but it most certainly will influence RPG design based on it's massive sales.

It's like in your Oblivion review, how you pretty much captured how Oblivion fans defended their game.

-If you attacked it as a bad RPG, then "it wasn't your grand-dad's RPG".
-If you attacked it as a bad action game, then "Dude, it's an RPG it doesn't need good action".

I mean the way I see it, Fallout 3 has RPG elements, but does a mostly mediocre job with them, and has action elements and does a piss poor job with them. I can judge it's individual elements compared to other games with them just as easily as I can compare how, say Freelancer handles trading as compared to Elite.

Are you not railroaded in 99% of main quests? In the unpatched Fallout you are railroaded into giving a damn about the water problem or the game is over in 150 days. In FO2 you simply must give a damn about stopping the Enclave if you want to beat the game. And so on, and so on...

The thing isn't that you are railroaded in action, it's that you are railroaded in motivation. You don't get to play anything but someone who wants to fix daddy's project, hence the player character being more like a plot device and less like an RPG protagonist. Even though Fallout 1 railroaded you into dealing with the water chip, you still had freedom of motivation. It still wasn't as jarring as Fallout 3.

I mean, railroading is acceptable to a certain degree for both programming limitations and a cohesive story. It's just if you're going to railroad the player, at least write/design it well. The game gives you no motivation to find your father, no motivation to fix up his project, and this just blows. Compare to Baldur's Gate. They railroaded you even more than Fallout 3 for all intents and purposes, but at least it made sense in the context of the game. Gorion is offed, assassins are hounding you constantly, and your companions encourage you towards investigating things, giving the player plenty of motivations.

Basically, it's not the railroading as much as how they railroaded the player that pissed me off.

It's wrong to criticize a game for not fulfilling this wish. In fact, it's kind of nice that you are not the ultimate bringer of doom and death.

Well, you said it's an action game....so shouldn't I be validated in this? I mean, what kind of action game doesn't make the player character or their group in the center of the action and the driving force in the fight?

Cheap shot aside, I think you're going a little overboard. I don't want to be the chosen one, per se, but I want something. See, if I play the entire main quest through ,and much of it involves me killing loads of stuff in dungeons, I at least expect to be a big part of the climactic final battle. But instead, Bethesda puts zero interactivity into it. Thats kind of a total cock-block, especially considering the fact that they railroad you so terribly. Basically, I can live with having a passive role in the final battle if I've been given good, meaningful choices, because it's scratching the RPG itch instead of the action itch which would be scratched by kicking ass. But when neither itch gets scratched, I feel like a passive character, like my input into the story is minimal, and as a player character in an RPG, that shouldn't happen. It should always be your story, no matter if it's the story of something as basic as climbing the social ladder to screw the prom queen, or as overblown as saving the world from brain slugs, and Fallout 3 makes you more of a sub-contracted quest-doer than a main character.

... in Fallout 1. It's only a point in Fallout 3. So, you only get 19 points per stat point.

No....I don't think that's how it goes. I distinctly remember getting 20 points per level up with 10 Int.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Edward_R_Murrow said:
TEXT RUSH KEKEKEKEKE!



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

Not even close. The reason it's effective isn't because it's amazing...it's because the game is piss easy. The railway rifle has a max damage potential of 30 and I'm pretty sure it can't be repaired and the ammo is limited, whereas many more weapons have a much greater amount of power, and are easily repaired and fed with ammunition.

Nope, and you really should have checked that before reviewing. You must have been using a railway rifle built from just one schematic. You DID realise that the weapon schematics in this game are all divided into 3 parts, with the resulting weapon being more powerful the more parts of the schematic you had when yuo built it?

Basically, if you only have 1 schematic the weapon will suck, 2 takes it about to the same level as a good found weapon, and a 3-schematic custom weapon (including the railway rifle) is usually one of the more powerful weapons in the game.

You DID know that, didn't you?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Azrael the cat said:
Nope, and you really should have checked that before reviewing.

Er.....I did. The max damage is 30.

You must have been using a railway rifle built from just one schematic. You DID realise that the weapon schematics in this game are all divided into 3 parts, with the resulting weapon being more powerful the more parts of the schematic you had when yuo built it?

Yes and no. I saw the loading screen that said having more schematics let's you create it in better condition, but that still doesn't change the max damage potential listed in the Vault as 30, and the fact you need at least two schematics and 100 repair to even reach that, whereas another weapon can easily reach higher than the max of the railway rifle (like the combat shotgun, or the chinese assault rifle) still speaks against it's general power level and thus how easy the game is, with a mid-level weapon being so dominant.

Sorry for the slight spergout on you with me being all stat-freak, but I just kind of pick up on the easiest/best ways through games, and schematic weaponry just wasn't worth it with all the much better alternatives easily available.
 

PlanHex

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
2,126
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
About the end sequence (*Spoilers* I guess):

I actually liked it because I like giant robots that spew anti-communist propaganda while blowing stuff up. I genuinely think Liberty Prime is pretty awesome.
But imagine! Instead of just seeing him walk all over the enclave, you could've been inside the head, cackling like a maniac while plowing down soldiers with your giant lasers and throwing nukes at the vertibirds while the automated voice of LP keeps yelling shit about destroying the evil communists and re-taking alaska. Now that'd put the awesome-o-meter over 9000!
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
The main quest was an abomination from a role-playing perspective. It's not only the fact that it is railroaded but that there is little to none choices in it. I can understand they made the main quest this way, considering this is a mainstream game for role-players, larpers and people who just want to have a story and kill stuff. They must have heard Bioshock developer saying that the main story must be linear and retarded for everyone to follow and thought this was a great idea.

They could have put some choices in there for stealth and hacker characters who invest little in weapon skills. I don't see how this would confuse even the most newbe console player by having more operational choices. Making combat easy so even a drunk can beat the game or lowering the difficulty bar is not something i consider good design so it would be important for me to have those options, because i also expect combat to be challenging and fun.

The leveling system is a little fucked up, but this isn't something new. Many people in the ES forums complained about visiting leveled locations too soon and then combat becoming too easy later. I guess they didn't listen.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
DarkUnderlord said:
Now I certainly wouldn't compare Fallout: Tactics to Fallout 1 and 2.
Would you compare Fallout 1 to Daggerfall or Morrowind? Morrowind with guns, supermutants, and vaults?

Volourn said:
Some people are just simply better than others at certain things. *shrug*
Obviously, Captain Obvious. However, that difference isn't enough to explain "the game is hard and I die a lot" vs "the game is super easy and I died only once". I think I should explain the "hard" comment. It's not hard because the enemies use tactics. It's hard because they have a lot of HPs and do a lot of damage. Kinda like playing Diablo 2 on higher difficulties.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Edward_R_Murrow said:
The key phrase being "at least one". Many quests have two or more of these "gimme more" things.
It's kind of pointless to argue without facts, replacing them with assumptions and theories. I checked my last save and I had 27 speech successes. I asked for "more money" maybe 5-7 times. You say you had 51 successful attempts, so assuming you got pretty much everything, the score is 20 vs 31.

Not to mention, whenever an important speech check does arise, there's always around two or three equivalent alternatives...
Alternative solutions are bad?

Speech actually matters in other games, and gives the player unique opportunities. In Fallout 3, it just let's you skip more crap.
Every game has crap quests that are nothing but chores. An option to convince people to skip them is a welcome one. I sure would have liked to skip the temple of trials in FO2 or the Ocean Hotel in Bloodlines. Speech does matter in FO3, it matters a lot more than in the previous games (Morrowind and Oblivion), in the Gothic series, and quite a few other, well liked games.

Never liked double standards.

Not even close. The reason it's effective isn't because it's amazing...it's because the game is piss easy.
It's not. Well, maybe on the xbox.

The railway rifle has a max damage potential of 30 and I'm pretty sure it can't be repaired and the ammo is limited, whereas many more weapons have a much greater amount of power, and are easily repaired and fed with ammunition.
Did you try the rifle? No. It doesn't sound like you built anything from the schematics, but looked stuff online and then made some assumptions. Do you really think you should have mentioned things you haven't personally experienced in your review?

I mean, if the railway rifle is top 5, just pick up a chinese assault rifle, sniper rifle or a scoped magnum (all with damage potentials over 35) and prepare to be amazed.
Really? Wow! I can't tell you how impressed I am with your flawless arguments. According to your logic, the best weapons in Fallout were the flamer (45-90) and the rocket launcher (35-100). There was no reason to bother with other weapons.

And I haven't even mentioned the "+1" weapons, the Fatman, or the Alien Blaster all of which make an already easy game into a joke.
The hate is strong in this one. Rise, lord Edward!

I'm not sure I like this line of logic. Are you saying that we shouldn't hold it to any RPG standards because "it's an action game?"
Yes. There are games like Fallout and Arcanum. There are games like Planescape and Mask of the Betrayer. Like The Witcher and Baldur's Gate. Icewind Dale and ToEE. And then we have Morrowind, Gothic, and Fallout 3. I hope I don't have to explain why FO3 is much closer to Morrowind and Gothic than to the original Fallout games.

I doubt Fallout 3 will change how Call of Duty 5 (6?), Gears of War 3, Halo 4, Far Cry 3, Mirror's Edge 2, Resident Evil 5, or Devil May Cry 5 will play, but it most certainly will influence RPG design based on it's massive sales.
Come on. You know what I mean by "action game".

... in Fallout 1. It's only a point in Fallout 3. So, you only get 19 points per stat point.
No....I don't think that's how it goes. I distinctly remember getting 20 points per level up with 10 Int.
The formula is 10+INT. So, yes, of course, you get 20 points with 10 INT, but you'd get 18 points with 8 INT. See, assuming again.

Overall, you are a good writer and you are good at analyzing games but you rushed the review. That's the problem. Should have taken more time to consider and absorb your experience and check the facts.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,338
Location
Bureaukratistan
SanguinePenguin said:
Well it causes XBAWKS faggots to crash their Shitbox 360 so it can't be all that bad.

"It should be noted that while VATS glitches aren't uncommon, the Railway Rifle, specifically, has roughly a 6% chance of completely crashing your game, freezing the screen and causing the controller to vibrate violently until the console is turned off. This bug affects both the XBox 360 and PC versions."

Just awesome :)
 

BethesdaLove

Arbiter
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
1,998
Overall, you are a good writer and you are good at analyzing games but you rushed the review. That's the problem. Should have taken more time to consider and absorb your experience and check the facts.

OLOLOL! Major diss!
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,518
Vault Dweller said:
DarkUnderlord said:
Now I certainly wouldn't compare Fallout: Tactics to Fallout 1 and 2.
Would you compare Fallout 1 to Daggerfall or Morrowind? Morrowind with guns, supermutants, and vaults?
This is the RPGCodex, we have a high standard when it comes to RPGs. We'll compare games that call themselves RPGs to the best RPGs there are. It's what this site is all about. If a 10 year old classic RPG did it better, then it doesn't matter how much a game might be an improvement over the other drivel released that year, a 10 year old game still did it better.

Vault Dweller said:
Really? Wow! I can't tell you how impressed I am with your flawless arguments. According to your logic, the best weapons in Fallout were the flamer (45-90) and the rocket launcher (35-100). There was no reason to bother with other weapons.
Actually if ammo for both was abundant and completely weightless and APs didn't matter so much, they would be. EG: The Rocket Launcher requires 6 AP to fire and about 2 to reload every time - meaning on average you get 1 shot off per round compared with other weapons which allow you to fire more often and thus deal more damage in that round. It's ammo is also the weightest in the game coming in at 3 pounds per rocket, meaning someone with a carrying capacity of 150 pounds can only carry the weapon itself and 45 rounds of ammunition at most. Even if you hit 95% of the time, that's only 42 enemies you have a chance at completely obliterating (assuming a single shot kill). The Flamer has a similar problem.

What Edward R Murrow appears to be saying to me is that the Railway Rifle is very much like the Rocket Launcher. That is, it looks good but there are weapons out there that will achieve much the same effect for a lot less effort. Considering if he really wanted to, he could've actually said Fallout 3's Missile Launcher is the best weapon in the game with its 140 damage. Which, funnily enough, isn't what he said at all.

Vault Dweller said:
Edward_R_Murrow said:
I'm not sure I like this line of logic. Are you saying that we shouldn't hold it to any RPG standards because "it's an action game?"
Yes. There are games like Fallout and Arcanum. There are games like Planescape and Mask of the Betrayer. Like The Witcher and Baldur's Gate. Icewind Dale and ToEE. And then we have Morrowind, Gothic, and Fallout 3. I hope I don't have to explain why FO3 is much closer to Morrowind and Gothic than to the original Fallout games.
This is the Codex. We have higher standards when it comes to our expectations of games that call themselves RPG's. For example, we have this really wonderful Oblivion review you might want to brush up with:

Vault Dweller's Oblivion Review said:
Gavin Carter said:
However, with Morrowind I think we saw that our kind of game appeals to a wider audience, given the game's success among more casual gamers who are neither "hardcore" nor "RPG geeks".
That quote is probably the best and most honest description of Oblivion I've ever seen. It's a game for casual players. Hardcore fans of the series or RPG geeks need not apply. You shall not find depth or challenge in Oblivion.
Beating that low standard doesn't sound like it'd be all that hard.

Vault Dweller said:
Never liked double standards.
LOLOLOL. FLIP-FLOP.
 

Black

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,873,073
DarkUnderlord said:
This is the RPGCodex, we have a high standard when it comes to RPGs. We'll compare games that call themselves RPGs to the best RPGs there are. It's what this site is all about. If a 10 year old classic RPG did it better, then it doesn't matter how much a game might be an improvement over the other drivel released that year, a 10 year old game still did it better.
Exactly. I don't give a flying fuck if it's better than Oblivion (wow, what an achievement). I care if a game that pretends to be a Fallout sequel is indeed a Fallout sequel. Then I'm going to compare it to its predecessors. Not to Morrowind, Oblivion or Fable 2 (what a competition). If they can't deliver and can't stand the consequences of comparing it to FO1 and 2- don't fucking touch the licence, uncreative fucktards.
 

Helton

Arcane
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
6,789
Location
Starbase Delta
Without reading both your reviews and all the discussion: VD are you saying Fallout 3 is better than Morrowind when judged against the same standards? I just find that really, really hard to believe.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
Seems like it would be hard to compare them. Morrowind lives and dies on writing and high level story design plus the tiny redeeming virtues of offline MMO gameplay. Everything else is a wreck. Fallout 3's writing and high level story design are burning garbage while the quest and general game design is apparently better. I'd think you could arbitrarily put one or the other in front.
 

Twinfalls

Erudite
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
3,903
Zomg said:
Morrowind lives and dies on writing and high level story design plus the tiny redeeming virtues of offline MMO gameplay.

There's also the very fine art design.

The Shish-kebab in FO3 is very useful, the best melee weapon I used, as it deals out significant damage and is very quick. Got me out of a lot of tight spots when cornered, and very useful when creeping up on a baddie.

anyway, carry on!
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
SanguinePenguin said:
Well it causes XBAWKS faggots to crash their Shitbox 360 so it can't be all that bad.
This would be sig material if one was allowed more sig space.


Is VD doing a chefe? I can see him disagreeing with some of Edward' points but this kind of vitriol is usually reserved for ESF retards.

Anyway: Since DU and Edward are much better at proving VD wrong I'll just comment on a few points:
Built a 100% Railway Rifle. Used it for two enemies and put it away since it wasn't as good as smuggler's end, laser rifle, eugene, combat shotgun, sniper rifle, plasma rifle or the special smg. All of which either were better at long range, short range and/or damage + being easily repaired. Not to mention all the other special weapons I didn't stumble over.
So the RWR is one of the most difficult weapons to come by and to up keep but definately not one of the best weapons. Making it pretty superfluous.

On alternative options:
Of course alternative options are nice, but alternative outcomes based on choice/development of character are better. If a significant amount of speech outcomes can be reached by high stats or skills as substitutes for speech checks that vastly reduces the charm of the speech skill. From all those 50+ speech checks a significant amount of outcomes can be reached by alternative options and a significant other portion consists of moar money checks. Moar money is useful in the very beginning where resources are actually scarce but quickly becomes superfluous.
Thus no character is really restricted (apart from very exeptions) by low speech in reaching his desired dialogue outcome (and that is not commenting on the disapointing outcomes due to bad dialogue). It is like making every enemy beatable even though your char sucks at combat. Oh wait...
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
The average and the good at the time Fallout was release was much lower than we all remember. The golden age of crpgs is just a few half-dozen games all made by a few veteran developers who come from the micro-computer market to the PC with fresh ideas to use the increasing power of PCs. These guys made a few awesome games and raised the bar for crpgs. Everyone else is still making lame games and trying to catch up with them. IMO if Fallout 3 was released in Fallouts time it would still be considered an above average game.
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
Zomg said:
Seems like it would be hard to compare them. Morrowind lives and dies on writing and high level story design plus the tiny redeeming virtues of offline MMO gameplay. Everything else is a wreck. Fallout 3's writing and high level story design are burning garbage while the quest and general game design is apparently better. I'd think you could arbitrarily put one or the other in front.
I guess it is kinda arbitrary, and largely depends on how you weigh certain game elements. But on an objective level, I think Morrowind is the better made game.

I'm in no doubt that Fallout 3 fails more often than Morrowind and is the less well realised game. Morrowind did what it did well (little it out and out failed on) and only fell flat for me for the things it did not even try to do, whereas Fallout 3 fails in a number of areas, brings a crap-load of stupid, and has an overall disjointed feel. I did not enjoy Fallout 3 because of poor execution of certain elements, not solely because it contained elements not to my liking.

It's for this reason I consider Morrowind the better game. Too much of Fallout 3 is poorly realised, with not enough on the other side of the ledger to balance it out. I could have enjoyed Fallout 3 were it better executed. Morrowind may not be my ideal type of game, but I recognise it as a well put together low C&C open-world RPG, a good game, but not to my tastes, I can't say the same of Fallout 3 it has far too many flaws and failures.
 

Andyman Messiah

Mr. Ed-ucated
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,933
Location
Narnia
You should have let me write my review, DU. Would've saved space and arguments.

"FALLOUT 3 - a review by Andyman Messiah

This game sucks my cock!

9/10

FALLOUT 3 - a review by Andyman Messiah"

Just kidding. I've read the review now and I have to say that it reads very well. You're a talented writer, Ed, but I have to agree with VD that it feels a bit rushed and sloppy.
 

Black

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,873,073
Andyman Messiah said:
You're a talented writer, Ed, but I have to agree with VD that it feels a bit rushed and sloppy.
Ed scales to FO3's level.
 

Fat Dragon

Arbiter
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
3,499
Location
local brothel
Andyman Messiah said:
You should have let me write my review, DU. Would've saved space and arguments.

"FALLOUT 3 - a review by Andyman Messiah

This game sucks my cock!

9/10

FALLOUT 3 - a review by Andyman Messiah"
Your ability to write amazingly detailed, perfectly accurate, and truly fair reviews surpasses that of mortal men. Nobody else could do it better than you, noble horse.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Shannow said:
Is VD doing a chefe? I can see him disagreeing with some of Edward' points but this kind of vitriol is usually reserved for ESF retards.
What vitriol? Saying that he rushed the review and didn't check some easily available facts? The mind boggles.

Anyway: Since DU and Edward are much better at proving VD wrong...
Where?

Built a 100% Railway Rifle. Used it for two enemies and put it away since it wasn't as good as smuggler's end, laser rifle, eugene, combat shotgun, sniper rifle, plasma rifle or the special smg.
In your opinion. In my opinion, it's an excellent weapon. Combat shotgun gives me 2 shots in VATS. The Railrifle gives me 3 shots and has a much better range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krGqhLdS ... re=related (The rifle in action)

So the RWR is one of the most difficult weapons to come by and to up keep but definately not one of the best weapons. Making it pretty superfluous.
If you collect junk just in case, you'd have enough components for several rifles. You can get the first schematic in the Underworld, which is way, way before you get your hands on enough laser and plasma rifles to keep one in decent condition.

Of course alternative options are nice, but alternative outcomes based on choice/development of character are better.
Anyone argues with that?

Edit:

Andyman Messiah said:
The review now and I have to say that it reads very well. You're a talented writer, Ed, but I have to agree with VD that it feels a bit rushed and sloppy.
WHAT'S WITH ALL TEH VITRIOL?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom