Finally playing fallout 3

[Jaime Lannister]

It's interesting because there is quite a big gap between the two games, in time (8 years) or production values, but Gothic just seem more fun to play. I might get a bad surprise soon and the game will become dull, but at least it got quite a good start.

Gothic easily dumps FO3 and Oblivion in terms of the design of the world you can explore, not mentioning that Gothic games have a NPC schedule done right. Some places really feel like they are "fantasy" forests/mountains and not boring generic hills with small trees of Oblivion/Failure3 copy pasted all around the place. So at least exploration where a world doesn't look like theme park shouldn't disappoint you.
Combat is terrible though.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 did combat well, for action RPGs that is. If you add mods so that there's more than one enemy per cell they're enjoyable games, but weak RPGs. I'll have to check out some of those story mods for Oblivion, Lingwei's in particular, but also the "integration" mod. That linear horror one could be pretty good, but might just be horror from the face-gen faces.

 

[Hory]

Fallout 3 did combat well, for action RPGs that is.

No, it didn't. It's repetitive, imbalanced and unrealistic. What is there good about it?

 

[LeStryfe79]

I know my thoughts on FO3 are an obvious minority around here, but that's why I put them out. Just trying to offer a different and honest perspective. One thing I'll add about newer games that I've noticed... It seems to me that the newer and better production values a game has, the easier it is to become critical of its shortcomings. For example, everyone seems to forgive FO2s lack of realism since it takes place in an isometric 2d view. But "Realistic" and "immersive" aren't entirely the same thing.

I'll be the first to admit that I tend to enjoy a wider swath of RPGs than most Codexers. I loved certain JRPGs like FF4-7, and the Shin Megami Tensei series. However, I also love various incarnations of Ultima, Wizardry and other CRPGs. I liked Bioware up THROUGH KotOR, and even KotOR 2 by Obsidian. That said, playing FO2 was one of my favorite memories from 10 years ago. Nothing will replace the joy I felt from being able navigate the NCR across an overworld map, never knowing what would come next or what choices I would make.

However, there was never a time, while playing FO2 that it ever became "more than just a game". There are very few games I've played that do this. FO3 did this for me, and for this reason I enjoyed it more. I'm not sure if this would have been possible without a modern physics engine and such. All I know, is that while playing it, I got the feeling of unlimited possibilities in a world that was familiar, original, and almost real. Many other veteran RPG players have had the same experience, and not all of us love FPS. Take it for what it's worth (not much), but these are things I feel completely justified to say.

 

[Black]

Fallout 3 did combat well, for action RPGs that is.

No, it didn't. It's repetitive, imbalanced and unrealistic. What is there good about it?

But that's combat for action RPGs for you! It's good for what it is! It's a piece of shit and it does good job at being a piece of shit. it's good!

 

[Hory]

For example, everyone seems to forgive FO2s lack of realism since it takes place in an isometric 2d view. "Realistic" and "immersive" aren't entirely the same thing.

We forgive FO2's lack of realism because it doesn't interfere with gameplay - and in fact it usually makes it better. When realism is lacking, gameplay compensates. In FO3, when realism is lacking, gameplay also happens to be lacking. Isometric goes hand in hand with a tactical, turn-based combat mode. In FO3 you are just shooting at everything that moves or ridiculously charging towards anything that moves and swinging your weapon at everyone who is in range. I was meleeing minigun mutants on very hard right from the start. Also because of imbalance, you have brainless situations where you cripple a deathclaw and then run laps around it while loading it with bullets.

I'll be the first to admit that I tend to enjoy a wider swath of RPGs than most Codexers. I loved certain JRPGs like FF4-7, and the Shin Megami Tensei series.

Nice of you to admit it, but those are pretty retarded games. I don't know what else to say.

However, there was never a time, while playing FO2 that it ever became "more than just a game". There are very few games I've played that do this. FO3 did this for me, and for this reason I enjoyed it more.

It may have become a better virtual reality simulator, but not in meaningful ways (characters, behaviors, relationships, societies).

I'm not sure if this would have been possible without a modern physics engine and such. All I know, is that while playing it, I got the feeling of unlimited possibilities in a world that was familiar, original, and almost real.

It's definitely possible without the engine. I've had that feeling in several CRPGs. The problem with FO3 is that it wasn't more than a feeling. It was an illusion. The illusion can have value in itself, but also risks being discovered - which I would have expected that you did. What are these unlimited possibilities? It mostly comes down to killing or not killing people. There are so many more things in FO2 that you CAN do.

Many other veteran RPG players have had the same experience, and not all of us love FPS. Take it for what it's worth (not much), but these are things I feel completely justified to say.

If you say so, but the argument based on numbers isn't a very good one for me. The more people like something, the more likely it is that it's shallow.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Fallout 3 did combat well, for action RPGs that is.

No, it didn't. It's repetitive, imbalanced and unrealistic. What is there good about it?

It's fun and dynamic, there's a huge rush trying to take down 7 raiders with 3 stimpacks and low ammo.

The problem is that in the vanilla game you have 15 stimpacks and nearly unlimited ammo against 1 raider per cell.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Fallout 3 did combat well, for action RPGs that is.

No, it didn't. It's repetitive, imbalanced and unrealistic. What is there good about it?

It's fun and dynamic, there's a huge rush trying to take down 7 raiders with 3 stimpacks and low ammo.

The problem is that in the vanilla game you have 15 stimpacks and nearly unlimited ammo against 1 raider per cell.

And the vanilla game is repetitive, imbalanced and unrealistic. If guns were more scarce, didn't break down in a minute and had any kind of stopping power (and if there were more enemies in a single encounter), it could have been decent.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

That can be fixed with a single balance mod.

Bethesda sucks at balancing games, but the mod community is fairly good at it, is what I'm saying.

 

[Black]

That can be fixed with a single balance mod.

Bethesda sucks at balancing games, but the mod community is fairly good at it, is what I'm saying.

So we all agree that Fallout 3 sucks, modders are okay.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

That can be fixed with a single balance mod.

Bethesda sucks at balancing games, but the mod community is fairly good at it, is what I'm saying.

So we all agree that Fallout 3 sucks, modders are okay.

I would put is as Bethesda is good at making engines (modifying Gamebryo, that is) and bad at making games. Fallout 3 was very well optimized and the modders only had to change a few numbers to make combat fun.

 

[MetalCraze]

Too bad changing a few numbers won't save from all other stupidity.
Taking down 7 raiders at once with 3 stimpacks and low ammo is not a rush. The only way you have that challenge is only because you were made weaker and the enemy stronger which is a cheapest "design" choice. It is much better to fight intelligent enemies that can do the same tricks as a player, because then it becomes more than just trying to move mouse as fast as you can just to shoot a bunch of polygons that behaves exactly the same every time. What games called aRPGs seem to lack today is making you use more than just reflexes.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Too bad changing a few numbers won't save from all other stupidity.
Taking down 7 raiders at once with 3 stimpacks and low ammo is not a rush. The only way you have that challenge is only because you were made weaker and the enemy stronger which is a cheapest "design" choice. It is much better to fight intelligent enemies that can do the same tricks as a player, because then it becomes more than just trying to move mouse as fast as you can just to shoot a bunch of polygons that behaves exactly the same every time. What games called aRPGs seem to lack today is making you use more than just reflexes.

No, there's AI flanking in Fallout 3. You just don't notice when it's only one enemy.

 

[The One True Gamer]

Or when it's six, because VATS will annihilate their ranks before they can even put a flanking manuever into play. I like the game well enough, but it's pretty mindless shootiness, not exactly tactical combat. Though there was one time where I came across an Enclave patrol and they spread out, took cover, and pinned me down with frightening efficiency.

 

[Qwinn]

Though there was one time where I came across an Enclave patrol and they spread out, took cover, and pinned me down with frightening efficiency.

This happened to me several times as well. I've got complaints about FO3, which I listed, but AI ain't one of 'em. Bout the only games I can think of that have similar or better AI are ones devoted 100% to combat.

Qwinn

 

[Hory]

Too bad changing a few numbers won't save from all other stupidity.
Taking down 7 raiders at once with 3 stimpacks and low ammo is not a rush.

They also imported one of Fallout's most retarded features - unlimited, instant stimpack usage. You're injured? Press inventory and spam clicks. Problem solved. How tactical.

What games called aRPGs seem to lack today is making you use more than just reflexes.

I play a lot of action games too and I can tell you that ARPGs don't even challenge your reflexes properly. They fail at being RPGs, they fail at being action games. How could they be "good" ARPGs?

Or when it's six, because VATS will annihilate their ranks before they can even put a flanking manuever into play. I like the game well enough, but it's pretty mindless shootiness, not exactly tactical combat.

Worse than mindless shooting. At least when you're shooting, you may face some challenge. But the design makes it so that regardless of your tactics, it makes sense to use VATS whenever possible which eliminates 50% of the challenge. A repetitive, no skills required process and a time waster because of all the slow-mos.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

This happened to me several times as well. I've got complaints about FO3, which I listed, but AI ain't one of 'em.

Two of my companions died to stupidity (they just run off cliffs etc. and there's not much you can do to prevent it other than making them stay put whenever you go near something dangerous).

I play a lot of action games too and I can tell you that ARPGs don't even challenge your reflexes properly. They fail at being RPGs, they fail at being action games. How could they be "good" ARPGs?

Well, are shooters with RPG elements ARPG's (Deus Ex), and is Diablo an ARPG? Those are pretty good.

And not all action games are supposed to challenge your reflexes, though it's true it'd be nice if the game challenged something else than your patience.

 

[Dionysus]

I play a lot of action games too and I can tell you that ARPGs don't even challenge your reflexes properly. They fail at being RPGs, they fail at being action games. How could they be "good" ARPGs?

This is a stupid comment that I see parroted a lot on the net. It's akin to bitching about the individual combat and driving elements in GTA 3 (which are both bad) without recognizing that the draw for most people comes from the integration of those elements into an open arena. You don't have to like it, but it shouldn't be hard to recognize it.

Well, are shooters with RPG elements ARPG's (Deus Ex), and is Diablo an ARPG? Those are pretty good.

Those are both ARPGs. They don't stand up well if you only compare their combat gameplay to the dedicated action games from their respective time periods. It's funny because people used the same argument to bash Deus Ex in the past. I'm glad that it's protected by the nostalgia filter now. I'm sure FO3 will receive the same treatment at some point in the future.

I think FO3 had solid combat compared to other RPGs. It wasn't hard enough at the higher difficulty levels, but that is easily rectified with simple mods.

 

[MetalCraze]

FO3 had solid combat compared to other RPGs

what

 

[Wyrmlord]

FO3 had solid combat compared to other RPGs

what

"Other RPGs" meaning other RPGs made very recently? It can probably make sense in that context.

 

[Shannow]

FO3 had solid combat compared to other RPGs

what

"Other RPGs" meaning other RPGs made very recently? It can probably make sense in that context.

Not really. If you compared it to NWN2 or TW you'd be comparing apples with oranges (even if one came to the conclusion that it had better combat than the ones mentioned). The comparison becomes even less sensical if you compare it with e.g. FO or other TB RPGs. So you'd have to compare it to "RPGs" with similar gameplay. Bloodlines, "Bioshock" or "STALKER" come to mind. And compared to those, does FO3 have "solid combat"? I don't think so. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I don't know, I have not even played FO3, lol.

It was just making an assumption about what the man could have meant.

Maybe it is comparable to that Mass Effect game, though.

 

[Dionysus]

"Other RPGs" meaning other RPGs made very recently? It can probably make sense in that context.

I'd say that it has a leg up on Ultima Underworld. It's a lot faster, the controls are much better, it's got better AI, and it even has area-specific damage. It's hard to compare to many of the RPGs older than that, but I certainly prefer it to Ultima II or Rogue. I'd take it over many similar RPGs (Bloodlines, TES, Mass Effect), but not SS2 and Deus Ex. I also find it more compelling than Witch Witch Revolution or the relatively less interactive experience I had with NWN2 recently. It's definitely not the best, but it's pretty good.

 

[Wyrmlord]

"Other RPGs" meaning other RPGs made very recently? It can probably make sense in that context.

I'd say that it has a leg up on Ultima Underworld.

Bold bold statement.

You may or may not be right (haven't played FO3), but it would be a huge feat if it managed to outdo Ultima Underworld, especially considering Ultima Underworld is probably is unsurpassed in the genre of action RPGs when it comes to the combat system.

Atleast that is what I think. Because I know for sure, that my body rises in excitement at every combat encounter in Ultima Underworld. Its cursor select attack system where you do different attack directions by placing the cursor at different parts of the screen, and effectively adjust by changing view direction - that makes for some intense fighting where you try to slash at the sword arm of the enemy, gut his stomach, smash down on his head, all done in mechanical precision based on your stats.

Seriously, Ultima Underworld? The best action RPG ever? If Fallout 3 actually managed to outdo THAT game, I'd think a rare miracle has happened.

Of course, that is if we are strictly discussing the combat. I'd be even more amazed if an action RPG matched Ultima Underworld's exploration and interaction, especially with all the painstaking jotting down the in-game runes that you have manually recite to cast spells, learning all the mantras and typing them to chant them inside the game, learning in-game languages, and then actually conversing in it manually through typed text - but I digress.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'd say that it has a leg up on Ultima Underworld.

I'd take it over many similar RPGs (Bloodlines, TES, Mass Effect)

I also find it more compelling than [,,,] the relatively less interactive experience I had with NWN2 recently.

I can't take so much stupidity. Comparing a generic shooter combat to more RPG-y combat of UU, calling Bloodlines, TES and Mass Effect - RPGs and even similar to Fallout 3, comparing it to NWN2 which has totally different combat. God can you kill all Codex members registered after 28th of October 2008, pretty please?

 

[Herbert West]

I managed to finish Fallout 3 and had some enjoyment in the process.
It's far better than Oblivion, but has its share of stupidity that made me want to turn away from my monitor in embarassment.
Hardly the best gaem evar made, but considering what creative modders have done to oblivion, Fallout 3 has a lot of potential. I'll consider replaying it in a year or so, with some mods.