Review Fallout 3 Stories and Reviews

[Barrow_Bug]

"Fallout 3 is quite possibly the greatest, most immersive, and most monumental RPG in existence. Beyond that, it is a literary masterpiece unlike anything this world has seen before. The genius of Bethesda's creation trumps the works of Plato and Shakespeare, offering deep philosophical thought and wonderful insights to the human condition around every corner. Fallout 3's magnificence will come to be known as one of the most pivotal points in human history."
- Excerpt from Chefe Reviews Fallout 3

I see you got your cheque?

 

[Fat Dragon]

"Fallout 3 is quite possibly the greatest, most immersive, and most monumental RPG in existence. Beyond that, it is a literary masterpiece unlike anything this world has seen before. The genius of Bethesda's creation trumps the works of Plato and Shakespeare, offering deep philosophical thought and wonderful insights to the human condition around every corner. Fallout 3's magnificence will come to be known as one of the most pivotal points in human history."
- Excerpt from Chefe Reviews Fallout 3

 

[Azrael the cat]

"Yea, since I like it how actual NWoD system necessitates a roll to prevent Morality degeneration if you kill. It would take away the whole silly "self-defence and killing evil stuff doesn't count" non-sense away. Killing is still killing, and your character should be treading on thin ice if his solution to seeing a gangster is to blow heads off."

Killing doesn't make you evil. Only a pansy retarded pacifist thinsk that.

Nope it doesn't make you evil. But it does make you jaded and emotionally scared. And that can for many people lead to self-destructive tendencies, that can then become outwardly destructive tendencies. When I worked as a criminal lawyer I encountered a disproportionate amount of ex-military guys getting themselves into trouble for assault, drunken violence, drug-related violence and so on - often motivated by nothing else but an uncontrollable anger that came over them. Most of these guys weren't in 'evil' conflicts - for the most part they had been serving in East Timor (I'm Australian btw) trying to protect the locals from Indonesian paramilitary (and military) incursions aimed at discouraging the independence vote and after that the fledgling democracy. On most people's ideas of morality that's a worthwhile cause. But it screwed them up all the same - the fact that they were fighting for something worthwhile didn't seem to protect them (I've represented on guilty pleas guys with less moral military backgrounds - one who was drafted into the Iranian army before coming to Australia asa refugee, and another who was in the UK occupation of Northern Ireland - good people doing some messed up stuff that they didn't believe in and against their will...but frankly that didn't seem to mess them up any more or less than the Australian army guys).

I'm no expert on the issue, and I'll certainly defer to the better knowledge of someone who has seen active duty or worked as a psychologist etc - but from what I could see there is something innate about killing someone or watching someone getting their head blown off next to you that just breaks something inside your head. On that basis it makes perfect sense to have in a game some check to see whether you can retain your moral standpoint against the bloody environment you're in

 

[Volourn]

That's dumb. That simply isn't true for everyone that has to kill. Don't try to make the extreme into the common.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I recommend reading Kingdom Come for a nice treatment on the subject whether (super)heroes should kill or not.

But really, the other thing is the point that in the end killing doesn't solve anything.

Also, despite having only gone through spec-ops training, I can vouch for militaries screwing people's heads up bad. Those places are built to create psychoses and cause massacres in real war.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world Blind"

Huzzah!

 

[Volourn]

"But really, the other thing is the point that in the end killing doesn't solve anything."

Actually, it does solve some thing. A murderer tries to kill my wife; but I killed him first. It certainly solved that problem.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

"But really, the other thing is the point that in the end killing doesn't solve anything."

Actually, it does solve some thing. A murderer tries to kill my wife; but I killed him first. It certainly solved that problem.

Did you have to kill to achieve that?

And what gave you the right to kill someone?

 

[Chefe]

And since when did you convince someone to marry you?

 

[Barrow_Bug]

All those dead Arab children lying in crater holes really fixed the west's little issues, amirite?

 

[Volourn]

"Did you have to kill to achieve that?"

Yes. It was eitehr him or her. EASIEST CHOICE EVER.


"And what gave you the right to kill someone?"

It's not about rights. It's about obligations.



"And since when did you convince someone to marry you?"

"4 REALZ!?!


All those dead Arab children lying in crater holes really fixed the west's little issues, amirite?"

I never claimed violence, and killing solved ALL problems. Dumbass. I simply disproved the theory that it doens't solve *anything*.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

"Did you have to kill to achieve that?"

Yes. It was eitehr him or her. EASIEST CHOICE EVER.

Except the logic isn't there. Killing was ONE possible option you had, making this nothing but a different type of murder. You didn't have to kill the man to save your wife.

"And what gave you the right to kill someone?"

It's not about rights. It's about obligations.

Obligation to kill pointlessly?

 

[Volourn]

"Except the logic isn't there. Killing was ONE possible option you had, making this nothing but a different type of murder. You didn't have to kill the man to save your wife."

Yeah, I did. He gave no other option. It was either him or her. I don't regret the choice.


"Obligation to kill pointlessly?"

Obligation to protect my spouse. Have ya heard of wedding vows?

It's not murder. It's killing. But, not murder.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

"Did you have to kill to achieve that?"

Yes. It was eitehr him or her. EASIEST CHOICE EVER.


"And what gave you the right to kill someone?"

It's not about rights. It's about obligations.



"And since when did you convince someone to marry you?"

"4 REALZ!?!


All those dead Arab children lying in crater holes really fixed the west's little issues, amirite?"

I never claimed violence, and killing solved ALL problems. Dumbass. I simply disproved the theory that it doens't solve *anything*.

Sheesh Vol, we're trying to have a debate. It's always Dumbass this and Dumbass that. I'm starting to think you're a little aggressive.

Maybe you should kill somebody and get it out of your system

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

"Except the logic isn't there. Killing was ONE possible option you had, making this nothing but a different type of murder. You didn't have to kill the man to save your wife."

Yeah, I did. He gave no other option. It was either him or her. I don't regret the choice.

How come there is no other alternative to this situation? Couldn't you just, for example, disarm him?

"Obligation to kill pointlessly?"

Obligation to protect my spouse. Have ya heard of wedding vows?

It's not murder. It's killing. But, not murder.

Except protection doesn't imply killing other human beings.

All killing is in the end murder. Unlawful killing of another human being. Why would something like law make killing somehow more right? This is also one of the things that haunts some war veterans: Killing is never justified.

 

[Volourn]

"Sheesh Vol, we're trying to have a debate. It's always Dumbass this and Dumbass that. I'm starting to think you're a little aggressive.

Maybe you should kill somebody and get it out of your system"

I only kill to protect myself or others. Thankfully, I've never personally had to do that.

If it's a choice between someone I care for or even an innocent strnager and a scumbag wannabe murder; it's an easy choice.


"How come there is no other alternative to this situation? Couldn't you just, for example, disarm him?"

Because, he's twice my size, and could snap me like a twig. And, he across the room with the gun pointed at her. And, if I take too long to get the perferct shot aimed at his gun hand, he'd have already shot her.


"All killing is in the end murder. Unlawful killing of another human being. Why would something like law make killing somehow more right? This is also one of the things that haunts some war veterans: Killing is never justified."

What a tool. Espicially sionce the law actually makes some killings very legal. Killing in self defense, killing to protect others (even proprty which I'm not behind), and killing for food are all legal hence not fitting the defintion of murder.

Espicially since I say,"FUCK THE LAW!"

The law is not gonna define my morals. Killing a would be murder attempting to snuff the life out of my wife is not murder but killing in defending of an innocent.

GAME OVER, WOULD BE WIFE MURDERER, GAME OVER.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Actually I agree with the wife stuff, but sometimes you're in for a penny, in for a pound. It's hard to discern "just" and "unjust" killing.

Look at the poor kid who had his brains blown out because he freaked out that guys were chasing him with guns on the London Subway. I know there had just been attacks recently and all but if those redneck police has aimed to wing him and not empty 8 rounds into his head, you'd have one less dead electrician in the world.

What they failed to see is that they were overstepping their role, especially as police.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

"Sheesh Vol, we're trying to have a debate. It's always Dumbass this and Dumbass that. I'm starting to think you're a little aggressive.

Maybe you should kill somebody and get it out of your system"

I only kill to protect myself or others. Thankfully, I've never personally had to do that.

If it's a choice between someone I care for or even an innocent strnager and a scumbag wannabe murder; it's an easy choice.

Why does protecting necessitate killing? And what makes some lives more worthy than others?

"How come there is no other alternative to this situation? Couldn't you just, for example, disarm him?"

Because, he's twice my size, and could snap me like a twig. And, he across the room with the gun pointed at her. And, if I take too long to get the perferct shot aimed at his gun hand, he'd have already shot her.

Except it takes just as much time to aim for the head than to the arm. And disarming was just one option. Shooting to the leg also works.

But the point is that you rather chose to murder a man than just stop murder.

"All killing is in the end murder. Unlawful killing of another human being. Why would something like law make killing somehow more right? This is also one of the things that haunts some war veterans: Killing is never justified."

What a tool. Espicially sionce the law actually makes some killings very legal. Killing in self defense, killing to protect others (even proprty which I'm not behind), and killing for food are all legal hence not fitting the defintion of murder.

Espicially since I say,"FUCK THE LAW!"

The law is not gonna define my morals. Killing a would be murder attempting to snuff the life out of my wife is not murder but killing in defending of an innocent.

GAME OVER, WOULD BE WIFE MURDERER, GAME OVER.

Except you fell to a little logical error there. Killing isn't necessary in any of those situations (especially in armed self-defence, where the whole lethal scenario is caused by the "victim"). You are deliberately choosing to cold-bloodedly murder a human being to prevent a potential future you could prevent in myriad other ways. Not to mention you are not a mind reader, you cannot know what are the intentions of the intruder. Could he, for example, be looking for cash and jewelry that he can use to feed his kids? What if the threat of being shot is getting to him? What if he isn't going to kill you wife?

Apparently you didn't pay attention to this: Law does NOT justify killing. Are you telling me that a group of people have the right to decide who is eligible to be murdered without consequences for the weak coward who committed the act? A human being doesn't have the right to brand killings justified.

 

[Volourn]

Wife Murderer Lover.

 

[Sarvis]

"Did you have to kill to achieve that?"

Yes. It was eitehr him or her. EASIEST CHOICE EVER.

Except the logic isn't there. Killing was ONE possible option you had, making this nothing but a different type of murder. You didn't have to kill the man to save your wife.

What if he failed his diplomacy check? I know psychotic murderers are always willing to sit down for a conversation in the middle of trying to kill someone <b>I</b> know!

 

[Data4]

One thing you can always count on here is that for any thread, by the time it gets to page 3 or 4, the discussion has fuck-all to do with the topic.

 

[Chefe]

One thing you can always count on here is that for any thread, by the time it gets to page 3 or 4, the discussion has fuck-all to do with the topic.

It's the Codex Effect. And it's why this place is such a shining beacon of light in the desolate wastelands of the Internet.

 

[kris]

Now, I'm sure you've gone through all that shit. You, however, did NOT say anything about walking through a war zone where people are robbing you to SURVIVE. These are people who are robbing you so they can eat later, not to feel tough or get some kicks. They need your food to live. They have guns. Frankly, if I was one of them you'd never see the bullet coming. Seriously, if you needed to rob someone in order to eat dinner later are you going to start by walking up to them to start a conversation?

Robbing people to survive and shooting people at sight is two very different things. People don't have the limited intelligence to just shoot at sight. Normal bandits will obviously gauge whether it is worth it or not, that is the thing that have kept them alive.

Fallout 3 have this problem that it is said to be many years in the war, but it entirerly designed like the war happened just months ago. Raiders would be better off raiding nuka-cola machines. and hunting animals that they exchange for goods.

 

[MetalCraze]

You know, some of Codexers make me agree with Volourn. Like the ones who spilled shit on the game and then bought F3 and now just try to go with 'self-excuses' (trying to make themselves believe that F3 is better than it really is?)
But newsflash - Fallout 3 is still a piece of shit game.
It has boring shooter combat, it has dumb AI, it has stupid writing, it has poor C&C, it has a character system that feels more like a gimmick, finally it has a bad visual design where a wasteland looks like a simple dump with random stuff thrown in - in stylish black'n'white. The game is still shit, no matter how you will look at it.
And no, Sheek, my dear - it isn't better than Deus Ex or Gothic. At least those games did what they were doing right.

 

[Disconnected]

[...] it isn't better than Deus Ex or Gothic. At least those games did what they were doing right.

Apart from some small degree of internal consistency, in what way is Gothic superior to anything at all? TES:Fallout isn't much of a Fallout game, but at least it's fun. Gothic is.. Masochism.