My Fallout 3 Thoughts…

Originally Posted by Nyapocalypse
@ JDR13
I'll take it as I really like the game but can't find a reasonable argument as to why, if you don't mind. But remember, kids: Bad taste is not only reasonable, but also comprehensible, and pretty common too so there's nothing to be ashamed of. And nya, too.

Nah, it's just that I'm pretty sure you don't "understand" a lot of things. It's no use trying to explain anything to people who see their opinions as facts.

Please, o amazing you, enlighten this feeble minded cat about what part of her opinion isn't fact since, let me see… Fallout 3 skills are totally underused and underdeveloped, combat is awful, and writing is retarded, yes? We actually were in accordance in this. So my opinion that isn't fact is that a game in which all you do is talk to people, kill monsters, and walk around is a bad game when the mechanics are broken, the writing is ugly, and the combat awful?

It totally doesn't compute. Tell me: What makes it a good game? I'm all fluffy, twitching ears. Nya.

Doesn't matter because the game is still shit. People can like shit. Who am I to tell them how to roll?

Originally Posted by Nyapocalypse
It totally doesn't compute. Tell me: What makes it a good game? I'm all fluffy, twitching ears. Nya.

A game with cats. Particularly fluffy ones. I don't like those weird hairless pussies. They freak me out.

@ MiniMelcar-Kun

You are starting to sound a lot like Haba, nya.

Originally Posted by Nyapocalypse
It totally doesn't compute. Tell me: What makes it a good game? I'm all fluffy, twitching ears. Nya.

I alread told you what *I* enjoyed about it. I found the sandbox aspects and exploration fun. I know that seems to be impossible for you to comprehend, but try to imagine, for a moment, a world where not everyone has the same exquisite and superior taste as yourself.

But we were discussing Fallout 3's virtues as a role playing game, remember? You said it was a good first-person, sandbox RPG ("If by "what it is" you mean a 'first-person, sandbox RPG' then yes, I do think it's good.") while, by your own present description thingie, the only role playing game element it has that does not suck and fail and stuffies is the exploration, and, by your own words, all other role playing game elements on it would be pretty awful. Nya, i say.

And if we are talking only about, like, exploration go play Deus or, like, Robinson's Requiem. They totally anihilate Fallout 3's survival in, and exploration of, a territory that hates your guts elements, you may like them.

So is this boiling down to your definition of what is or isn't an "RPG"? I couldn't care less about how a game is classified, only whether or not I'm enjoying it. Anyways, I think both of our opinions have been made clear at this point.

In this case it isn't my definition of what is a role playing game. Saying that a game that fails at every role playing element other than exploration is a good role playing game is like saying Halo is a role playing game because you play the role of Master Chief. You are free to say you had fun playing Fallout 3, but saying Fallout 3 is a good role playing game when character stats where mostly useless, combat was almost completely independant of character build, and writing, and thus interaction, was awful is a bit of a stretch, don't ya thinky think?

Examplity Example: My test character in Fallout 3 was something like Strenght 2, Percepcion 4, Endurance 2, Charisma 10, Intelligence 8, Agility 2, Luck 10 or some thingie like that. Tagged First Aid, and other two useless thingies. Took that feat that allows you to be a bitch to males, yes? Really, a totally awful character build. Then i bought a laser pistol, went to a raider base, and wiped every single living thingie in there with that character, no loads, no saves, no troubles. Role playing game, you said? Reaaaaaally? When your character is totally unimportant?

Other than that, have fun walking around the wasteland and listening to, like, three dog. I don't care, nya.

That's nice, except it doesn't change what I said about not caring how a game is classified.

Other than that… I will.

Originally Posted by Melcar
FO3 is shit. Stop telling lies. Even after you forgive the setting rape, as a game it has very little merit. For most next gen kids and players with short memory spans it will be a good game, but for most people that have been around it doesn't even provide minimal levels of enjoyment. It lacks any kind of charm.

So I have been around since the 80'ies too, starting out with games like King's Quest I, Pac Man and Donkey Kong, and I thought F3 was ok. I remember that during the teenage years, many were really anxious about having an identity as an "adult" or "older" or "mature", but once they got older many realized that fun is more important.

Originally Posted by JemyM
So I have been around since the 80'ies too, starting out with games like King's Quest I, Pac Man and Donkey Kong, and I thought F3 was ok. I remember that during the teenage years, many were really anxious about having an identity as an "adult" or "older" or "mature", but once they got older many realized that fun is more important.

You sold out.

Originally Posted by JDR13
That's nice, except it doesn't change what I said about not caring how a game is classified.

Other than that… I will.

FO3 is a generic game that has no genre. It tries to do many things, but its substance is pure gimmicks. It can be fun, but the fact remains that it's a crappy game. It's just another pick up and forget game that deserves no praise whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Melcar
You sold out.

I do not need to build an identity on being a computer game genre purist, I am happy about the one I got for being me. I am perfectly happy about playing games just for fun and I do play a lot of games.

I play games for fun too. Games haven't been fun in a while though, mostly because they're shit. It's true.

Originally Posted by Melcar
I play games for fun too. Games haven't been fun in a while though, mostly because they're shit. It's true.

You are trying too hard.

I lack enough conviction to try. I just do it.

Originally Posted by Melcar
I lack enough conviction to try. I just do it.

Train your conviction by beating the game furthest from your interests.

I'm no game journalist or professional review writer. I don't have an obligation to play games that I don't have interest in. When I see a game that I may like I play it all the way through. If I like it I play it again, and again if I really enjoyed it. If find the game to be shit then I say it's shit. That was the case with FO3. It's just a shitty generic game with no replayability.

Jemy and JDR - you're just being trolled by Codexers.

A few facts about this thread:
1. Gaming is a matter of taste. As long as you've actually tried most of what's out there, it's up to you to decide what to enjoy.
2. Some people consider their taste superior, not because they have more experience, but simply because they're them. They were born better. Or something.
3. People supporting 1 or 2 are not going to agree. Ever.
4. The topic is dead and will never evolve beyond that basic disagreement.

Personally, I am as experienced as any RPG player, and I enjoyed FO3 quite a lot. It's not going to be on any top list of mine, but then again, I never expected it would be. Still, it's nice to see Bethesda put more Morrowind than Oblivion into their FO games - as far as I'm concerned, there's a vast difference between the two games (I still consider MW a great game, but Oblivion complete rubbish).

Originally Posted by Maylander
Jemy and JDR - you're just being trolled by Codexers.

Add to what you say that the Codexers seem unable to differentiate a game from their personal political agenda. Commercial success HAS to mean a sell-out. Everything about Bethesda is SHIT - not average or bland or mediocre or flawed, but a pure affront to humanity. Same for Bioware. These guys don't need to actually play games to make pronouncements on their crapitude …

Well Codex friends, maybe one of your own can explain it better than we can.