Fallout 3 - Mothership Zeta Screens and Info

rune_74 · July 15, 2009

JDR13 said:
Nope... "common sense" would be comprehending that a sequel to a game from a Decade earlier is most likely going to have more than just some slight changes to gameplay mechanics.

I know. That's called an "opinion".

Oh thank god someone else picked that up. Anytime you use the word feel in an arguement it becomes an opinion.

JDR13 · July 15, 2009

Brother None said:
Yes, 10 years passed, and in that time technology has progressed. Naturally, mechanics from the original title can use that technological and technical progress to take a giant leap forward. So why didn't they?.

How would technical progress improve on turn-based combat and an isometric view?

Brother None said:
Again, we're not talking about advancing mechanics, changing mechanics, we're talking about replacing them.

Yes, replacing them with more modern mechanics that better fit the time period. As well as simply making more sense from a business standpoint.

Brother None said:
No, it's called a supposition, one that is meant to preclude these "but I prefer"-type of meaningless arguments. You can disagree with the supposition, obviously that is an opinion, and argue about it in turn, but that doesn't really hold water to the above point on the uselessness of "me-focused", opinion-based arguments, does it?

You seem to have taken my statement for a general "opinion is bad" type thing. If so: you missed the point. The point being that nothing useful can be gained from just shouting opinions.

I'll have to just agree with you on this one.

Supposition: 1. A judgment, estimate, or opinion arrived at by guessing.
2. A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

Antonyms: Fact, knowledge, proof, reality.

Brother None · July 15, 2009

JDR13 said:
How would technical progress improve on turn-based combat and an isometric view?

The same way it has improved RT combat and an FP view: better AI, more intuitive controls, more complex underlying systems, better graphics. It's exactly the same progress, only without jumping from one system to another.

There was a lot wrong with Fallout's TB in particular. Badly balanced, overly simple, amongst other things. And I've stated multiple times now I'm personally a big fan exploiting the freedom of camera made available by 3D, which means isometric view becomes one mode out of many, but hell, I keep repeating statements like these and you and rune just continue on as if I've never made 'em. I suppose arguing is easier that way?

JDR13 said:
Yes, replacing them with more modern mechanics that better fit the time period. As well as simply making more sense from a business standpoint.

I'll not argue the "business standpoint", despite the fact that I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to provide any proof that a TB RPG would not sell these days, but "modern mechanics"? Are you honestly this taken with game industry PR that you think RT is "more modern" than TB? I hope you're joking.

JDR13 said:
Supposition: 1. A judgment, estimate, or opinion arrived at by guessing.
2. A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

Antonyms: Fact, knowledge, proof, reality.

Synonym hypothesis, in case you still haven't figured it out.

JemyM · July 15, 2009

Brother None said:
The tribals were a terrible idea in Fallout 2 and they still are now. And how in Frith's name do hillbillies fit in the wasteland setting?

From an anthropological perspective, civilization reset means a couple of things.

"Hillbillies" or "rednecks" were white, poor settlers in rural areas. The stereotype is that they lost almost all social strings, but kept a least parts of their familys history. This means that they have access to some modern inventions like guns and drugs, but they also fall to an almost feral stage, with violence, inbreeding, cannibalism, defending your territority with excess xenophobia and violence etc.

Tribals is one step further, loosing complete attachment to their history. Much of who we are is based on a accumulation of experience from generation to generation, but humans natural state is no different than what it was thousands of years ago. If you completely loose attachment to history, progress and technology, you go back to the roots, which means tribal culture, probably with excess superstition, shamanism etc.

In a post-apocalyptic world, both makes complete sense.

Brother None said:
Are you honestly saying Fallout 3 did not make a profit by itself?

No. I said that F3 lacks content, the neccessary cut to be able to make the game in time. It could also have been like Gothic 3, with more content but too many bugs since the cut was made on QA. This is pretty much the reality today; something have to be cut to get the game done. The question is what.

Since content (and balance) got the axe in F3, being able to pay a bit more to "get it done" is a good idea. I do not see that as a "money-pump", but a chance to complete the game to it's potential. There are plenty of games that could have taken new and great directions in the past, but were given maybe a patch or two and then left static forever. There are mod communities, but they are rarely able to deliver the kind of content that a professional developer can. I would have loved to see some more quests in games like KOTOR, Bloodlines, Wizardry 8, Arcanum etc.

Of course, there's the option of making a whole expansion, but expansions is an expensive matter and doesn't allow for mistakes and experimentation that theese DLC's does, and they need to be much larger, usually like a complete game. Some games got 1 expansions, and that's usually it. In F3 the quality of the DLC have gone up a lot since the first one was made. Anchorage felt pointless. The Pitt was better but felt too small. Broken Steel added a lot to the game, and Point Lookout manages to challenge the original game in quality. If this is how it will be for RPG's in the future, count me in.

Brother None said:
Interactivity is not defined by gameplay how, exactly?

Gameplay is just part of the picture, but not neccessary the whole picture, meaning that you can make a related sequel while keeping none of the gameplay, just like you can make a related sequel while keeping none of the story.

You can argue that they should have done what many recent sequels did; simply calling the game "Fallout", forgetting the past completely. To me, the "3" is a reference to the games heritage more than a "sequel". A real "sequel" to a 10 year old product is nothing I would recommend and that counts for both games and movies. I prefer the "3" there compared to just keeping the recycled title while completely changing the game and acting like no previous games exist (like TUROK). Also, Fallout 3 have more in common with Fallout 2 than Far Cry 2 had to Far Cry 1.

Had Fallout 3 been called "Fallout: Washington DC", it would quickly be renamed "Fallout", and the reference to it's history would be forgotten. Now when you see the game you have to ask "What about Fallout 1 and 2?". Who knows, maybe there are even gamers who decided to try the old games out, or ask old gamers what "Fallout 1/2" was about, ressurecting an old franchise rather than just exploiting the name. The "3" makes people talk, and that's important. I have already been asked by several if I played Red Faction yet. And I go like "Yeah, I actually played Red Faction and Red Faction 2 a year ago" and they go like "duh, it was released this year". When they say Red Faction they mean Red Faction 3, but it's called Red Faction: Guerilla, so now it's "Red Faction" again.

Brother None said:
SPECIAL is there, if reformed in such a way as to change it completely, as should be obvious to you as a PnPer (Fallout's SPECIAL is a characteristic-based system, Fallout 3's SPECIAL is skill-based).

F3 fails to utilize the SPECIAL system, meaning replaying the game with a different type of character was pointless. This is one of the games weakness as far as I concern, and I hope Las Vegas will make a better job.

Brother None said:
But you do raise an interesting issue. How many changes are too much? TB to RT is fundamental, but is it alone too much? Depends, combat was never the focus of Fallout anyway...I think the biggest warning sign on Fallout 3 is not in one big wallop of a change, I think it is in an overall different approach. Fallout 3 is an action-RPG, Fallout 1/2 are pen-and-paper emulating RPGs. It's funny how people think the tag "RPG" means they're related, but RPG doesn't tell you much about fundamental differences. I'd say Fallout 3, with its focus on exploration, twitchy combat, consequence-avoiding-through-level-scaling, takes a different approach to the genre than Fallout 1 did, with its TB combat and focus on choice and consequence.

I would say that the Fallout series were heavy on combat, much of it random encounters which I found annoying even back then. Interestingly there was an attractive skill to take just to spare you the hassle... But I know what you are getting at.

Thing is, the idea of choice and consequence got lost ages ago. It was a popular theme back around y2k, but I have barely seen any RPG bothering about it since. Bioware promoted their games with "choice" as a feature, but what they did was that they begun offering a clearcut black or white option. Games such as fable follow the same bandwagon that make any moral philosopher cry. Such design have nothing to do with morality or choice in my book. Troika had actual choices and real dialogue in their games, but it's now 4 years ago they broke down. Obsidian's Mask of the Betrayer was great though, but that feels like an exception in a market that have deevolved during the latest 10 or so years.

Interestingly, I would say that Fallout 3 is the first mainstream game in ages that really have choices that isn't black or white. Sure, there are some outright "evil" options in F3, but there are also plenty in the grey field. So I wouldn't judge perhaps the only game for many years that have actual choices/consequence as a "game without choice/consequence", just because it doesn't have as much choice/consequence as a +10 year old game. Can things get better? Yes it can, but I won't deny that there are choices in F3.

When developing F2 they could put their entire focus on that form of gameplay since the engines were easier to make, but it was notorious for it's humongous amount of bugs at it's release.

Brother None said:
It certainly is something that can be argued about, tho'. And that's cool. Just realise that up until now I've not been arguing about whether or not the gradation of change is too much, I've been arguing for the supposition that fundamental gameplay change vs gameplay evolving is a key value in analysing the worthiness of sequels. I don't mind if people disagree with me that Fallout 3 missed the mark on Fallout 1/2's core gameplay, if they can logically argue it (I'm not too fond of your argument, though, which basically boils down to "everything is subjective anyway", a bit of an argument-killer, and I hate post-modernism in general), but I do find it odd when people are forcibly arguing that this doesn't matter on any level, which is the crux of what I've been arguing against in this thread.

After my recent education it's almost impossible to leave out psychology, and if I analyse this discussion, my conclusion is this: unless one of us write a serious article on a large, respected game website with a lot of influence, this discussion is pretty much two geeks speaking nostalgia. I'm not much into post modernism myself, but sometimes I try to remind myself to not take games too seriously.

Hedek · July 15, 2009

I've never quite understood what was with Brother none's comments that caused so much disagreements and resistance among certain RPGWatch readers. I mean every time he posts something about Fallout 3 here, he has to post like 10 follow-ups to detail, clarify, and back-up his opinion.
I'm not saying this to defend Brother None, he's smart (and patient) enough to do it himself, I'm saying this because I largely agree with his arguments and criticism regarding Bethesda's Fallout 3. I mean what's so wrong with saying that (fact) Bethesda *could* have done things differently and that (in our opinion) *should* have done things differently?

What's so wrong with arguing that (fact) Fallout 3 isn't coherent with the Fallout IP as appeared in Fallout 1&2 and that (opinion) although Bethesda does have the right to change it at will now that they've bought the whole franchise, some of us *wished* they'd adhere more to it?

What's so wrong with saying that (fact) TB isometric isn't the old tech and that FPS RT the new cool stuff and that (opinion) some us wished Bethesda had sticked to TB isometric?

What's so wrong with noting (fact) that Bethesda *could* have called Fallout "3" something else so as (opinion) not to disappoint fans in support of a faithful sequel rather than creating false expectations and hopes by marketing it as the direct sequel?

JemyM · July 15, 2009

Hedek said:
What's so wrong with noting (fact) that Bethesda *could* have called Fallout "3" something else so as (opinion) not to disappoint fans in support of a faithful sequel rather than creating false expectations and hopes by marketing it as the direct sequel?

Let me repeat the point I just made;

I have already been asked by several if I played Red Faction yet. And I go like "Yeah, I actually played Red Faction and Red Faction 2 a year ago" and they go like "duh, it was released this year". When they say Red Faction they mean Red Faction 3, but it's called Red Faction: Guerilla, so now it's "Red Faction" again.

You can argue that they should have done what many recent sequels did; simply calling the game "Fallout: Washington DC", but to me, the "3" is a reference to the games heritage more than a "sequel". A real "sequel" to a 10 year old product is nothing I would recommend and that counts for both games and movies. I prefer the "3" there compared to just keeping the recycled title while completely changing the game and acting like no previous games exist (like TUROK). Had Fallout 3 been called "Fallout: Washington DC", it would quickly be renamed "Fallout", and the reference to it's history would be forgotten. When you are a younger player and see the game now you have to ask "What about Fallout 1 and 2?". Who knows, maybe there are gamers who decided to try the old games out. This ressurects an old franchise and pay proper respect to it's heritage, rather than just exploiting the name to catch some old gamers.

This also means that people talk, and that's important. I believe that many old gamers got the question "so tell me what Fallout 1/2 was about", thanks to the "3" in the title. This gives a chance to talk about how games used to be. This is a chance to talk about consequence/choice gameplay. This is a chance to talk about the SPECIAL system and how choice of character used to be important in RPG's.

If you want to see a sequel cashing in on the name, look at Far Cry.

Hedek · July 15, 2009

Then why hasn't Fallout Tactics been redubbed "Fallout 3"?
It resembles Fallout 1 and 2 in many ways, while also obviously diverting from it on many others... just as Fallout 3 compared to F1&2.

Still the Fallout fanbase recognized Fallout: Tactics as a different type of game and never (afaik) renamed it Fallout 3. Likewise, to many of us Fallout 3 is a different type of game and shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

If the playerbase has the power, at least in their own perception, to rename unnumbered sequels to numbered sequels in line in the series, then I believe the opposite is possible too. I don't know what is the habit with other franchises, but with Fallout Tactics the Fallout playerbase has proven it is capable of distinguishing direct sequels from other types of games within the same IP.

Had Fallout 3 been called something else, I'm not certain the playerbase would have unanimously renamed it "Fallout 3". We would have enjoyed it for what it is: a RT FPS with RPG elements set in Bethesda's take of the Fallout setting.

I've never heard WoW being referred to as W4, and KOTOR fans -albeit reluctantly- seem to have accepted that SW:TOR isn't KOTOR 3.

dagoo7 · July 15, 2009

There are apparently some individuals on this thread who are ideally suited for the supreme court as they apparently have access without any hermeneutic interference to the original ideal and intent of the Fallout divine text. They by definition can only express fact and can therefore, a priori, safely dismiss anything else as opinion. Now if they could just do the same thing with the constitution the nation could be saved from dangerous cultural relativism.

This is really a pointless (and increasingly circular) discussion, and regardless of whether any of us want to admit it, our perspective is an opinion in this instance no matter how much anyone declaims otherwise. Opinions are great, lets move on.

Hedek · July 15, 2009

dagoo7 said:
There are apparently some individuals on this thread who are ideally suited for the supreme court as they apparently have access without any hermeneutic interference to the original ideal and intent of the Fallout divine text. They by definition can only express fact and can therefore, a priori, safely dismiss anything else as opinion. Now if they could just do the same thing with the constitution the nation could be saved from dangerous cultural relativism.

This is really a pointless discussion, and regardless of whether any of us want to admit it, your perspective is an opinion. Opinions are great, lets move on.

So comparing Fallout 1 with Fallout 3 and concluding that the latter diverts from the former in many ways is an act of intellectual dictatorship in which we declare what the truth is? See that's exactly what I was mentioning vis a vis resistance against Brother None's arguments. "Change" has become something that's forbidden to argue against and anyone noticing that "things have changed" and the "s/he'd prefer a game that's more like the original" causes outright rejection.

So customers aren't allowed to express how they wished the product they bought should have been?

dagoo7 · July 15, 2009

Dude, see the point about "increasingly circular" argument. You are free to express you opinion, just admit that's what it is. You have an interpretation, a perspective, and a belief. That's great, just stop pretending you came down from the frikkin mountain with it and damning others with different opinions. What's particularly funny is that nobody here really disagrees all that much. Now proceed with your circular reasoning for as long as you please.

JemyM · July 15, 2009

Hedek said:
Then why hasn't Fallout Tactics been redubbed "Fallout 3"?

The considerable timelapse between 1998 and 2008 is long enough for a completely new generation to step in, which means a different market with a different mindset. Fallout Tactics was released only 3 years after F2 with pretty much the same engine. At that point Fallout 3 was in development, so it didn't need to be spiritually renamed F3.

Hedek said:
the Fallout playerbase has proven it is capable of distinguishing direct sequels from other types of games within the same IP.

There's a difference between fans and fans. The group you are referring to is a limited community. Among people who haven't lived fallout for the past 10 years, Fallout: Tactics is often talked about as a fallout title and is currently sold with F1/F2 in bundle. It was updated to semi-canon in F3. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel isn't, and even fans of Fallout 1/2 might never have heard of it. Compare that with a "Star Wars fan" who never heard about Yhuuzan Vong or Teräs Käsi, and probably wouldn't be able to discuss what you could do with a ysalamari or perhaps didn't even saw the prequels.

Hedek said:
I've never heard WoW being referred to as W4, and KOTOR fans -albeit reluctantly- seem to have accepted that SW:TOR isn't KOTOR 3.

A mmo is a completely different kind of product.

Brother None · July 15, 2009

dagoo7 said:
This is really a pointless (and increasingly circular) discussion, and regardless of whether any of us want to admit it, our perspective is an opinion in this instance no matter how much anyone declaims otherwise. Opinions are great, lets move on.

This is what I was trying to prevent. I loathe "it's all opinions, so who cares right?" statements. Not because they're not true, but because - if anything - they're too true, and complete defeat the purpose of intelligent debate. It's post-modernism gone rampant, and while gaming is certainly one of the least serious aspects of human culture it has touched upon, it's still annoying as heck.

JemyM said:
From an anthropological perspective, civilization reset means a couple of things.

From an anthropological perspective, they would beat you with clubs for saying "civilization reset".

JemyM said:
"Hillbillies" or "rednecks" were white, poor settlers in rural areas.

Yes. Except that Hillbillies are a counter-culture by definition, they exist by merit of having something else to exist against. Anti-social subsocieties like these have always existed, only in Fallout's (and most post-apocalyptic) lore, such a position is usually taken up by raider-types.

There is something inherently contradictory in trying to present rednecks in isolation of cultured society. Hell, remember Deliverance? The whole reason the hillbillies work as a menace is because the ones they are fighting against are so cultured.

Besides, I'm pretty sure we're in the wrong place in the US.

JemyM said:
Tribals is one step further, loosing complete attachment to their history.

And now I know you lost touch with anthropology. There is no such thing as completely losing attachment to ones history, it is a contradictio in terminis.

If you want to do tribalism in a post-apocalyptic setting, then by definition it has to be based on what came before. Good examples include:
Mad Max 3; a children's tribal society (ok that bit doesn't make sense), waiting for the return of "captain" Walker, to take the aeroplane away into the skies. It has a remaining logical connection to what's actually there, but twisted in a tribal way.
The Gods Must Be Crazy; always an anthropological favourite. An empty coca cola bottle is dropped in an African tribe, and one of them goes on a quest to return it to God.
A Canticle for Leibowitz; hey nelly, one of the biggest inspirations of the original Fallout is based on a book where an entire religion is based on an old shopping list. Good example, yesno? There's more Golden Age of Sci-Fi (one of the bigger inspirations for Fallout's setting) stories based on this premise, such as Heinlein's Lost Between the Stars...

But even if you "do it right" like the above examples, there are major conceptual problems with tribalism in Fallout:
1. Too soon. You can't regress to tribalism that fast. This is especially true for Arroyo, which is only two generations removed from a plasma rifle-wielding, power armor-wearing dude who was raised in a high-tech vault.
2. Too close. There is no conceivable way for a community of people to become isolated and regress in the locations offered by Fallout. Arroyo is too close to Klamath. Point Lookout is too close to DC. If you're so close to places you can trade with, communicate with and/or loot, why would you live like a tribal?

JemyM said:
No. I said that F3 lacks content, the neccessary cut to be able to make the game in time.

That doesn't make any sense either. Fallout 3 took 2 years for a staff of 100 to make. The DLCs have so far taken about 6 months for a staff of 25. Even at the worst case scenario, adding the DLC-amount of content would have taken the full staff 2 months. It's a drop in a bucket for the content as a whole, and certainly doesn't hold up to the price.

JemyM said:
Gameplay is just part of the picture, but not neccessary the whole picture.

Never said it was, but you seem to be saying you can divorce the experience from gameplay. That seems extremely unlikely to me.

JemyM said:
Also, Fallout 3 have more in common with Fallout 2 than Far Cry 2 had to Far Cry 1.

Yes, but Far Cry 2 is a turd.

JemyM said:
Had Fallout 3 been called "Fallout: Washington DC", it would quickly be renamed "Fallout", and the reference to it's history would be forgotten.

Not really. In fact, not at all. How do we refer to TES IV: Oblivion, as TES IV or as Oblivion? Morrowind? Same story. If Bethesda had been respectful enough to call it Fallout: Capital Wasteland, much like Obsidian's upcoming title is called Fallout: New Vegas, we'd be referring to it as Capital Wasteland, assuming that's how PR would've pushed it on us.

JemyM said:
I would say that the Fallout series were heavy on combat, much of it random encounters which I found annoying even back then.

Heavy? Yes. And with the whole bloody mess thing it was certainly a lean-to for the developers.

JemyM said:
Thing is, the idea of choice and consequence got lost ages ago. It was a popular theme back around y2k, but I have barely seen any RPG bothering about it since.

Interestingly, I would say that Fallout 3 is the first mainstream game in ages that really have choices that isn't black or white. Sure, there are some outright "evil" options in F3, but there are also plenty in the grey field. So I wouldn't judge perhaps the only game for many years that have actual choices/consequence as a "game without choice/consequence", just because it doesn't have as much choice/consequence as a +10 year old game. Can things get better? Yes it can, but I won't deny that there are choices in F3.

Fallout 3 did some things extremely well in the C&C department. The best example is the Tenpenny Tower quest, which is deviously structured.

But they got it wrong more often than they got it right, both in offering black-n-white choices (with horrible, horrible parodies of morality in the "white knight" version of that Brotherhood of Steel" and that awful, awful "fight the good fight" Three Dog) and, more importantly, in protecting the player from the consequences of his choices. If I want to mess up so badly I can't finish the game, that's my choice. That kind of kid-friendly protection is a major problem in Fallout 3.

Is it a step forward from Oblivion? Oh yes. And I definitely give it props there. Still a step back from Fallout, and definitely from Fallout 2, a major clusterfuck of a game technically and setting-wise, but one of the best-designed games in PnP-based c&c structure ever.

JemyM · July 15, 2009

Brother None said:
Yes. Except that Hillbillies are a counter-culture by definition, they exist by merit of having something else to exist against.

Hillbillies/rednecks doesn't necessary mean a rebel, or intellectually counter-culture. The stereotype comes from their absence of civilization rather than their educated rejection of it.

Brother None said:
Besides, I'm pretty sure we're in the wrong place in the US.

The stereotype is often an American living in the south, but if the entire American landscape got removed you would have the same kind of people up north. If you visit northern Sweden, with a vast rural area, you might discover people with similar mindsets.

Brother None said:
Mad Max 3; a children's tribal society

I would had brought up MM3 myself if you hadn't mentioned it.

Brother None said:
But even if you "do it right" like the above examples, there are major conceptual problems with tribalism in Fallout:
1. Too soon. You can't regress to tribalism that fast. This is especially true for Arroyo, which is only two generations removed from a plasma rifle-wielding, power armor-wearing dude who was raised in a high-tech vault.
2. Too close. There is no conceivable way for a community of people to become isolated and regress in the locations offered by Fallout. Arroyo is too close to Klamath. Point Lookout is too close to DC. If you're so close to places you can trade with, communicate with and/or loot, why would you live like a tribal?

In the end of Fallout 1, the vault dweller rejected civilization.
The tribals in Point Lookout are religious zealots.

Brother None said:
That doesn't make any sense either. Fallout 3 took 2 years for a staff of 100 to make. The DLCs have so far taken about 6 months for a staff of 25. Even at the worst case scenario, adding the DLC-amount of content would have taken the full staff 2 months. It's a drop in a bucket for the content as a whole, and certainly doesn't hold up to the price.

There are advantages of separating the DLC's into a different project than the main game. I do not think it would have made much sense to have them in the original game, but they could have fleshed out the main world a bit. Then again, chances then would be that they would end up like Gothic 3.

Brother None said:
Not really. In fact, not at all. How do we refer to TES IV: Oblivion, as TES IV or as Oblivion? Morrowind? Same story.

Not only are each Elder Scroll game a stand alone product with new engine and new gameplay, one would not blame the world for being original. Furthermore, while one could make the argument for daggerfall -> morrowind (6 years), I wouldn't make it for Morrowind -> Oblivion (4 years). And 10 years between is a much greater gap than 6.

Brother None said:
If Bethesda had been respectful enough to call it Fallout: Capital Wasteland, much like Obsidian's upcoming title is called Fallout: New Vegas, we'd be referring to it as Capital Wasteland, assuming that's how PR would've pushed it on us.

You would still disassociate the game with it's heritage.

Brother None said:
But they got it wrong more often than they got it right, both in offering black-n-white choices (with horrible, horrible parodies of morality in the "white knight" version of that Brotherhood of Steel" and that awful, awful "fight the good fight" Three Dog) and, more importantly, in protecting the player from the consequences of his choices. If I want to mess up so badly I can't finish the game, that's my choice. That kind of kid-friendly protection is a major problem in Fallout 3.

I doubt that hardcore gaming would go well with todays players. I had to make that choice myself while desigining a remake for Eye of the Beholder II. There are points of no returns in that game, and I decided to avoid them, because I know that no one would play my mod all over again because they decided to try something that the game locked them out if they did.

bemushroomed · July 15, 2009

I'm looking forward to this, the other DLC that i've played (havent played the latest one) were quite good (except Anchorage which, seemed to have a large budget and looked very professional, but the gameplay was crap tbh). The Pitt was great, felt like i was in a Mad Max movie or something hehe

Overall I'm very glad Bethesda took over the license, i like their approach to games. Bioware are all about characters/story (which is so-so anyways in their games, imo) and they forget everything else. Bethesda focuses on free-roaming, interactivity, exploring, immersion (having NPC schedules, day/night cycles etc) which is what i think is the most important thing in games, story/dialogues/characters will always come second since movies and books does this better every time anyways, and its not the reason i play games.

JemyM · July 15, 2009

bemushroomed said:
havent played the latest one

What are you waiting for? Point Lookout is probably the best expansion.

bemushroomed · July 15, 2009

yes it seems great, it's installed but havent gotten there just yet

curious · July 15, 2009

ignorance of gaming "history" is forgivable
of real history less so.

no comments were posted on a gamebanshee review of a week or so ago but that author clearly was a fool. his bias was laughable at best. critizing the lack of thought and design of someone creating something when the effort they expend on exploring/writing the review is disgusting, even for a "independent" site. the clip posted here on the watch lambasted Bethesda for the best part of the "not-necronomicron" book quest was completely foolish. it was a great quest like the majority of the dlc, which have been progressively better in my view, but what the author pointed out that the best part was the Dunwich Building was actually all completely available in the original version of the game and he was right about it being a cool level. in fact the level is completely vacant if you entered it originally and the statue was there prior so all that is added is a 2-second graphical effect and a few strings of dialogue...to me the most disappointing part of the dlc not the best.

hillbilies and tribals are different but they are most definately not out of place being that Virginia is considered the south and that's none to far from DC also there quite a bit of relevent info on wikipedia which i'm highly sure wasn't added for the sake of Fallout 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_in_the_American_Civil_War

and Maryland which is in the capital wasteland was a confederate member in spirit even if they never seceded.

hell the article even mentions point lookout
_______
However, despite considerable popular support for the cause of the Confederate States of America, Maryland did not secede during the United States Civil War. This was due to when Abraham Lincoln intervened forcibly, arresting some 3,000 community leaders who were Southern sympathizers and allowing many more to be disfranchised.[2] Subsequently, many prominent men lobbied Hicks to call the General Assembly into special session, purportedly for the mixed reason of opposing secession and opposing the Northern attitude towards the South. Initially called into session in Annapolis, Hicks changed it to Frederick. Annapolis was a Southern Democratic town, and secessionist, and Frederick was Unionist. Additionally, many legislators and Southern sympathizers were arrested by Lincoln. The legislature convened in Frederick unanimously adopted a measure stating that they would not commit the state to secession, "even though we have the constitutional authority to take such action." Thousands of Union troops were stationed in Charles County, and the Union established a large, unsheltered prison camp at Point Lookout at Maryland's southern tip where thousands of Confederates died in misery. The Annapolis suburb of Parole was a neutral meeting ground where prisoners of both sides were "paroled."

the main thing is for me however that fallout, like any game, belongs to those involved in its creation, the gamers only have their gaming experience and the audacity with which most FANS behave is akin to a babysitter trying to claim custody of someones child. and of course the difference being no game is worthy of warranting a "game protection services", though I'm sure some sickingly beg to differ.

peace love recycle

my quarterly quota has been reached, til next time

dagoo7 · July 15, 2009

Brother None said:
This is what I was trying to prevent. I loathe "it's all opinions, so who cares right?" statements. Not because they're not true, but because - if anything - they're too true, and complete defeat the purpose of intelligent debate. It's post-modernism gone rampant, and while gaming is certainly one of the least serious aspects of human culture it has touched upon, it's still annoying as heck..

I never said "it's all opinions, so who cares." Debate is fine and you can and should enter into one with the knowledge that maybe you aren't always right. Just because you can't accept someone else's position (apparently ever) does not mean that they are being horribly post-modern and relativistic. Frankly for that, I think you should be taking a long hard look at yourself as well.

Moreover, I think you are taking yourself more than a bit too seriously in this instance. We are talking about a frikkin game here not assisted suicide or the holocaust.

Rithrandil · July 15, 2009

Brother None said:
In common sense? Every sequel that changes gameplay radically is met with backlash and derision, either major or minor (often depending on its age, and the popularity of the genre it's changing into).

What about Star Control II? Or Resident Evil 4?

rune_74 · July 15, 2009

And here I thought games were supposed to be fun...

Fallout 3 - Mothership Zeta Screens and Info

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Okay, now roll sanity.

Sentinel

Okay, now roll sanity.

Sentinel

Watchdog

Sentinel

Watchdog

Okay, now roll sanity.

SasqWatch

Okay, now roll sanity.

outlander

Okay, now roll sanity.

outlander

liberty or license

Watchdog

SasqWatch

SasqWatch