RPGWatch Forums - View Single Post - RPGWatch 2008 Game of the Year - Best RPG
View Single Post


January 10th, 2009, 00:57
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
For me personally, I think it's very important to say exactly what you mean. When you say that Fallout 3 is just as bad in an "exploratory" way as Mass Effect - it's helpful if you actually mean it. If what you really want to say is that you find Fallout 3 just as bad OVERALL as Mass Effect, or dreary in some general way - whatever - then say that instead.

But if you don't actually mean what you say - you're going to struggle a bit when your words are challenged. Such misunderstandings are not beneficial - or at least I don't think so. Then again, I don't care for conflict for conflict's sake, even if it's amiable like it usually is around here.

Beyond that, I strongly recommend being able to back up any claim that lies in a factual realm. For example, I'd argue that exploration is a relatively concrete concept and if you think Fallout 3 is bad in this way, it should be easy for you to present why you think so - in a logical and consistent fashion. You failed to do that.

As far as a simple subjective opinion such as "Fallout 3 is boring", it should be enough to say that and not mix it up to cause a reaction.

I can promise you that whenever I see something I disagree with - that I care about, even in a small way - I'm going to challenge it. There's no need to spice it up.
Ok so I'll try logically and consistent when being illogical has failed. (Up yours Sherlock Holmes ) So the explanation for my raving is:

Premise 1: I think that side quests in F3 are for the most part an uneventful experience (still better than the main quest). With bleak'n'weak characters. The quests try to be much more but IMHO fail. Some locations are nicely done, but empty.

Premise 2: The ME side quests do not try to be anything but cannon fodder for loot and XP. That is just miserable, however you quickly accept them as being such and either quit or move on for the sake of loot. The main story is told in a very good way, even though not the most original one in the bunch.

Premise 1a: The exploration in F3 is hindered by "canyoning" the world with debris and ruins. I strongly object to that. If it is an exploration I want to go wherever I want and by any means I want. Drudging along the metro is just not cutting it.

Premise 2a: The Normandy can take you anywhere, practically anywhen. Is a cool ship to boot. Although you do not really explore anything. You pick a system from the starchart, read some nice descriptions of the planets and land on !khazam! another copy-paste planet with bad guys.

Conclusion 1: Exploration in F3 is bad.

Conclusion 2: Exploration in ME is bad.

The degrees of suckiness may vary from person to person, however I still maintain that you cannot pick F3 superior "exploration" as a point over ME

For reasons stated before (being tied to F1&2, and liking a good story over other elements), I am more inclined towards ME than F3.

Thank you for a good conversation, flame on

Disclaimer: the premise-conclusion thing may not follow from a standpoint of formal logic
Xizor is offline




Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)