View Single Post

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 21:15
Haven't Bethesda or Pete said that you can use a Teddy Bear as a weapon in this game?? You just need to learn a way to throw it - really, really hard at someone.

Now, there's controversy for you…

And by that I mean that someone (the infamous jack) will find a reason to complain about anything in a game that do not appeal to them.

I, for one, don't understand why people would want to be able to kill children in any game, but I do respect that some people want to have that option. Remember it is an option in the game, not a requirement to finish the game.

Besides, many games have that option.( of killing children) I even think one of the Icewind Dale game have that option, Bioware games could have it, and at least in Star Wars Episode three, there's supposed child killing, too. We don't see anything, but we can guess what happened…

You can kill children in Fallout 1+2 - but everyone go hostile towards you and you bear the mark childkiller forever. 99% of the tradesmen won't barter or trade with you. The game can be finished but you will have a very difficult time in doing so. And that's how it should be. Let the player do what he or she wants (within reason) and then let the player feel the consequences.

At any rate, I agree, that the Bethesda probably would do better deciding not to put child killing in the game at all; games today, especially games like Fallout 3, are much more scrutinized by the public than they were 10 or 12 years ago. It seems to me that Pete said that you're free to attack the children, but they flee and the adults defend the children. I think this is a fairly balanced compromise.

As for the discussion of perks vs. traits, I don't quite understand the difference either. I'm OK with them being merged into perks and that you get to choose a new pewrk every time you level up. But 100 perks?? That's a lot. Less is (again) more, I find. 50 or less perks would have been better, I find. The skill list looks OK too, I find.

The thing that worries me a bit is that the role of combat apparently is greater
than in the previus titles; also that the game 'can be treated as survival horror' (which means we only must rely on ourselv+our dog in the desert).
There is an element of survival horror in the earlier games, but it is certainly not what the games are all about.

I do not hope this game turns out to be like the latest Might and Magic game.
It certainly sounds this way, especially since Pete mentions the most frigthening enemies in rpgs and the environments being the most destructible in rpgs as of yet. And here I thought that destructible environments were a hallmark of the FPS genre.

It does certainly sound like a game that it is much closer to STALKER than the original (previous) Fallout games…

Not, that it is a bad thing….

Necessarily…

Please support http://www.maternityworldwide.org/ - and save a mother giving birth to a child.
Last edited by aries100; July 9th, 2008 at 21:26. Reason: added more content
aries100 is offline

aries100

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team RPGWatch Donor

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark, Europe
Posts: 2,089