Review NMA's World of Pure Imagination

[DarkSign]

That's kind of what I meant when I said "rubric of gameplay", but you make a good point to separate the raw computing technology from the use of it as part of the gameplay.

It's all well and good to be able to compute the Radiant AI behavioral schedules of the King's guards with raw power, but if you dont turn that into meaningful gameplay then it's not worth much.

And that's why I think people are expecting time to have mattered in FO3's case. Sure on one level you're simply comparing one work of fiction to another, but on another level since it's interactive fiction, you'd hope that the march of technology and methods of interaction (whether based on advances in coding or simply based on having had the time to think up better game play) would have yielded some fruits.

I get the argument that good is good no matter what. The classics stand up despite a lack in tech / advancement. The point is just that as time goes on it's not unnatural to expect an advance in the tech / genre that yields something "better."

 

[Hory]

Personally, the two main things that I'd like to see being advanced are gameplay and writing. These don't even depend on technology that much. FO3 has dumbed-down, repetitive gameplay and silly writing.

 

[Jaesun]

That was an interesting angle for you to take for your review Brother None, and fit perfectly.

Well done, I enjoyed your review.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Even though the box clearly states that it’s Fallout and adds a very convincing "3", it’s not a Fallout game. It's not even a game inspired by Fallout, as I had hoped. It's a game that contains a loose assortment of familiar Fallout concepts and names, which is why you start the game in a "Vault", get a "Pipboy" device, become buddies with the "Brotherhood of Steel", shoot some "Super Mutants", and stop the evil "Enclave" from doing bad things to good people in a post-apocalyptic "retro-future" America. The main plot revolves around water (Fallout 1 plot) and requires a G.E.C.K. (Fallout 2 plot), thus assuring you that you really are playing a 100% authentic, notary certified Fallout game. With, like, vaults and stuff. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

That kind of sums up what I've thought about the game when I first started hearing about it. It's almost like a fan made game where the fan had no original ideas on his own, but he knew enough about Fallout and Fallout 2 to cram every obvious reference from those games in to the new one. I remember reading through the shitty Fallout fan fictions on Duck and Cover for shits and giggles. Fallout 3 feels like those. It's clumsy and it seems to stumble a lot over cutting and pasting things from Fallout and Fallout 2 and trying to make a plot point or two out of them.

It would have been nice since Fallout and Fallout 2(even Fallout Tactics) had enemies from the old, pre-war world if Fallout 3 had something new crop up in the wasteland. Ditch the FEV, ditch the Brotherhood of Steel(except for maybe a few references from a traveller or two that they exist to the West), and ditch the monsters which were FEV + Radiation.

 

[MetalCraze]

So NMA, who hated F3 so much more than mixed hatred of Codex and DAC hiveminds did now simply went into the denial that this isn't shit and a good game? Even not looking at shitty writing, shitty c&c and retarded quests? And now goes "I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
..."

hahahaha NMA is fucked.

 

[Melcar]

So NMA, who hated F3 so much more than mixed hatred of Codex and DAC hiveminds did now simply went into the denial that this isn't shit and a good game? Even not looking at shitty writing, shitty c&c and retarded quests? And now goes "I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
I must forget that this is fallout and think that there were no rpgs before it to enjoy
..."

hahahaha NMA is fucked.

It was amusing to see their gradual change of stance. I was tempted to break my lurker status over there and join in with the FO3 hate orgies, but I then realize how hypocritical they were. Not all of them are like that, mind you. It's like a high speed car racing down the track that quickly changes direction and some passengers fall off; I bet many members over there felt like that.

 

[shihonage]

That was a pretty damning review and coincidentally one of the most accurate assessments of F3 I've seen.

 

[Tintin]

Re. Review

Just like I find myself wondering why they bothered to put in third person if they weren't going to do a good job of it?

Bethesda fans want third person so they can stare at their pretty characters, not to play that way. It's kind of stupid the way you can customize your character's appearance to such an extent, when the game is first person. The only option was to include a third person, and the fans like that.

I have to ask: why make a PC version at all if you're not going to do it properly

$$$

It's still nice, but if you're a graphic buff, prepare to be a bit disappointed.

The graphics look kind of ugly in my opinion, they remind me of Morrowind.

 

[DarkSign]

I'm wondering if those on NMA suckling the tit of FO3 aren't just trying to establish some sense of objectivity for the overall purpose of retaining (?) credibility.

I mean...if you bash something for an extended period of time then people write it off as nerdrage! - even if you have lucid, thought-out points that make sense. So how do you get back to being the arbiter of all things Fallout? You write a review that seems reasonable. Forget the myriad reasons you've already posted that contradict the new stance.

Where's Rex when you need a good flip-flop?

 

[raving nincompoop]

Also, again, I'm not talking about gameplay in general, or how much of the gameplay sucks, I'm just talking about the structural side of game design.

Wait, what?

Lets go a few steps back.

Explain to me how, structurally, quests like the Wasteland Survival Guide, Tenpenny Towers or the Replicated Man are not just as good as anything BIS or Troika produced. They give you real choices, offer a variety of skills to be tested, give different rewards for different solutions and factor in long-term consequences (at least Tenpenny Towers does). The only problem in structure is Bethesda's predilection to fall back on dungeon crawl solutions.

You have gotta be kidding me. No really, WTF?

You give credit for beth for:
1) implementing dialog options that lead to different outcomes *A
2) these different outcomes sometimes lead to different rewards *B
3) factoring long-term character action *C

Well lets see.... they actually put some *gasp* RPG MECHANICS in fallout 3.

WOW.

RPG mechanics that have existed in cRPG for years, beth put them in fallout 3.

I cannot tell you just how deeply impressed I am right now.

Fuck.

Moving on:

*A) to some extent, sometimes
*B) I really hope different rewards means something more the amount cash i get for selling it
*C) again, to some extent, sometimes, and not only that, some of those long-term consequences is not ITSELF long term

So beth implemented ACTUAL RPG mechanics (that probably existed in fucking handheld consoles by now) in fallout 3, and in the process they managed to screw it half the time.

Is this what make you think that "structurally" fallout 3 is as good as BIS and Troika work?

edit:
I don't know about you but where I live something like this (putting RPG mechanics in an RPG) is usually considered meeting the fucking minimum requirements.

 

[HanoverF]

Even though the box clearly states that it’s Fallout and adds a very convincing "3", it’s not a Fallout game. It's not even a game inspired by Fallout, as I had hoped. It's a game that contains a loose assortment of familiar Fallout concepts and names, which is why you start the game in a "Vault", get a "Pipboy" device, become buddies with the "Brotherhood of Steel", shoot some "Super Mutants", and stop the evil "Enclave" from doing bad things to good people in a post-apocalyptic "retro-future" America. The main plot revolves around water (Fallout 1 plot) and requires a G.E.C.K. (Fallout 2 plot), thus assuring you that you really are playing a 100% authentic, notary certified Fallout game. With, like, vaults and stuff. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

That kind of sums up what I've thought about the game when I first started hearing about it. It's almost like a fan made game where the fan had no original ideas on his own, but he knew enough about <s>Fallout and</s> Fallout 2 (and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel) to cram every obvious reference from those games in to the new one.

 

[DarkSign]

So which "obvious references" from FO2 could have been left out in your opinion? Without harm to the atmosphere or the canon.

 

[HanoverF]

From Fallout 2? Pretty much everything. Vaults as experiments, G.E.C.K., enclave, jet, Harold, giant ants. About the only thing they didn't use from Fallout 2 were tribals, or did I just not discover that location?

 

[Brother None]

So NMA, who hated F3 so much more than mixed hatred of Codex and DAC hiveminds did now simply went into the denial that this isn't shit and a good game?

It isn't shit.

It has shit parts, sure, in dialogue, in animations, in the main questline, in world design. But overall, the game isn't shit. Depending on your angle, I'd say it's reasonable to call it mediocre, ok or good. It certainly isn't great, and if I have to judge it purely and solely as a Fallout game, it's shit; it fails to be anywhere close to an adequate sequel to Fallout.

Also, pretty sure DaC always hated Fo3 more than we did.

I'm wondering if those on NMA suckling the tit of FO3 aren't just trying to establish some sense of objectivity for the overall purpose of retaining (?) credibility.

Oh please. I never cared about NMA-bashers enough to adapt anything to their needs, why should I start now? We have credibility with those open-minded enough to really think about our points rather than our reputation and that's the only people I care about, people who let their pre-conceived notions get in the way of listening to rational points can just stuff it - that's always been the case and it doesn't change now.

NMA suckling the tit of Fallout 3? Are you kidding me? If there's any official stance, it's that this game is about as related to Fallout as Fallout: BoS was, and that while it's a good game, it is also one that has so many flaws that a lot of people will reasonable hate it. At the same time, it also has its good points, and while I just laugh at the retarded reviews praises it as the second coming, I do see why some people would enjoy it - this was something I could see for Oblivion as well, and that game's inferior to Fallout 3.

FFS, guys, you're acting like there's this dichotomic world where you either hate everything about Fallout 3 or you love everything about it and all of a sudden NMA falls into the love category. Pffft. The game does some things better than I expected it to and I'm not going to pussy out and ignore that, it also sucks at plenty of other stuff (including being a Fallout sequel) and nobody is ignoring that. Read the impressions piece, I'd say.

You write a review that seems reasonable. Forget the myriad reasons you've already posted that contradict the new stance.

Nothing I have ever said contradicts the stance I take here, and this isn't NMA's Fallout 3 review.

You say "seems reasonable". I wrote a review that expresses what I think. If I'd felt more free in the word-count (I wanted to keep it short) I might've ranted more on the karma system or talked about how broken the game is some more, but since this isn't the real Fallout 3 review I didn't want to go overboard. So what...are you saying this review isn't reasonable (given that it ignores the Fallout name on purpose, something which wouldn't be reasonable if it were the Fallout 3 review)

Bethesda fans want third person so they can stare at their pretty characters, not to play that way. It's kind of stupid the way you can customize your character's appearance to such an extent, when the game is first person. The only option was to include a third person, and the fans like that.

That might be it. But Bethesda stated beforehand they'd make third person more playable, something they failed to do. Surprise, surprise.

(stuff)

Your point has already been addressed, please read thread.

About the only thing they didn't use from Fallout 2 were tribals, or did I just not discover that location?

Oasis is kind of a tribal location.

 

[poocolator]

... I recall it to be particularly retarded, since the interactions with the characters were largely identical, and you always had the exact three lines to ask each of them...

Exactly what I've noticed! At least in the original Fallouts, the generic characters were implemented well even if you were not able to initiate dialogue with them. Honestly, I think dialogue in Failout 3 (ie, copy&paste dialogue) is the way it is because of the limitations of the construction set, if anything like Oblivion's (which is very probable). Anyone who has tried experimenting with dialogue in the oblivion construction set would have noticed it's primarily geared towards working with large groups of NPCs and not individual ones. Actually, this is one of the main reasons I never felt excited to encounter new locations in Failout 3: because I know variety in NPC dialogue, and therefore interest, would just fall flat on it's face.

 

[Claw]

Well, given all the semi-praise I've caved in and ordered FO3. I sure hope it's worth it. And I hope my PC will run it, POS that it is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well lets see.... they actually put some *gasp* RPG MECHANICS in fallout 3.

WOW.

RPG mechanics that have existed in cRPG for years, beth put them in fallout 3.

I cannot tell you just how deeply impressed I am right now.

Well, you should be because even though these mechanics aren't new they haven't really been implemented in CRPGs outside of a very few games. Any other game would have received generous praises from the Codex, but because it's Bethesda, it's different? Double standards much?

Exactly. I'm sure that Pong was considered a good game when it was released, but I can't consider any new game to be good if it just has gameplay and features at the same level as Pong. I'd probably consider it a bad, repetitive game.

You are missing the point. Pong's gameplay has been improved and developed into several different directions. Pong gameplay is obsolete. That old Fallout design hasn't been beaten yet. It's still top of the line.

 

[HanoverF]

...At the same time, it also has its good points, and while I just laugh at the retarded reviews praises it as the second coming, I do see why some people would enjoy it - this was something I could see for Oblivion as well, and that game's inferior to Fallout 3.

Most games I think are shit but others like I can at least see how someone might derive some enjoyment from them. I cannot do that with Fallout 3. It's broken as a FPS, the gameplay is bad, the sense of discovering new places is hampered by the sameness or dullness of most locals (not quite the appalling cut and paste levels as Oblivion though), it looks good to damn good depending on your comp and GPU (and ignoring things like animation and models) there's a smattering of RPGness. Not quite Oblivion with guns, it's a small step up from Oblivion, but it's still shit.

 

[Mantiis]

Good Points:
-Exploration is fun
-Some quest have more than one way of finishing them
-Some of the audio logs were quite good
-Loved the sneaking around and head shotting people.

Bad points:
-The dialogue is shit.
-The enemy AI is dum.
-And the ending fucking sucks. What a surprise. We'll just put this into the MotB pile.

 

[Vault Dweller]

...At the same time, it also has its good points, and while I just laugh at the retarded reviews praises it as the second coming, I do see why some people would enjoy it - this was something I could see for Oblivion as well, and that game's inferior to Fallout 3.

Most games I think are shit but others like I can at least see how someone might derive some enjoyment from them. I cannot do that with Fallout 3. It's broken as a FPS, the gameplay is bad, the sense of discovering new places is hampered by the sameness or dullness of most locals (not quite the appalling cut and paste levels as Oblivion though), it looks good to damn good depending on your comp and GPU (and ignoring things like animation and models) there's a smattering of RPGness. Not quite Oblivion with guns, it's a small step up from Oblivion, but it's still shit.

What are your thoughts on Daggerfall and Morrowind? I'm curious.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

-And the ending fucking sucks. What a surprise. We'll just put this into the MotB pile.

You'll do nothing of the sort!

 

[Tintin]

Er, why isn't Vault Dweller's review just being posted on this site?

 

[Mantiis]

-And the ending fucking sucks. What a surprise. We'll just put this into the MotB pile.

You'll do nothing of the sort!

Watch me!!

 

[Andyman Messiah]

-And the ending fucking sucks. What a surprise. We'll just put this into the MotB pile.

You'll do nothing of the sort!

Watch me!!

I will not!

 

[HanoverF]

What are your thoughts on Daggerfall and Morrowind? I'm curious.

Been forever since I played Daggerfall, I remember loving the character customization and the game not railroading you into the main quest, huge map but lots of cookie cutter towns and NPCs, but that wasn't really the point of the game (unlike a Fallout game). Don't think I was ever able to finish because of bugs. Morrowind I barely remember, didn't enjoy it enough to get any expansions. IIRC it took elements I liked in Daggerfall and made them miserable (requiring jumping or casting in place to train skills). And endless cliff racers. That's pretty much all I remember about it.