Fallout 3

[darkdarkasian]

I'm astonished to find that there isn't a Fallout 3 thread.

Who here has Fallout 3 and what do you guys think about it?

[uncempt]

There is one, it's just way down and not named too obviously. Expect a merge when a real mod notices

I just finished the game and I was gutted about the ending. What a pile of shit. In the first two games you got a little bit of info on what happened to each of the places you passed through, the characters you helped or screwed over or whatever. Not in this one though

[Starnum]

Well I tried to merge the threads but couldn't get it to work for some reason. Anyway, yeah, it's a great game. I haven't played the first two games, but I wish it had the type of endings the other two had, from what I hear at least.

[Loeviz]

Ive played it, was one of the games I looked forward to the most 2008.
The more you played the game the more it became obvious that it was pretty crappy.
There arent many quests to do (There were tons of quests in Oblivion, why didnt they stick with that in F3?).
It takes about 15-20 hours until you got bored with the bullet time mode.
I turned in the game right after I finished it, the expansion does look a little better with the snow landscapes but I really dont feel like I want to play it again.
Even Mass Effect was better than this game in all.

[War Machine]

I don't know about you, but I'm having loads of fun with Fallout 3.

[Femto]

Fallout 3 is fantastic.

I couldn't stop playing it for like 3 weeks.

[Starnum]

Whoa, what the hizzy is that, Warmachine!?

Mind elaborating a bit on that picture?

[War Machine]

Well, you can pretty much grab any dead body with the R3 button and move them around, so I took their clothes and positioned them. I thought it was so funny it deserved a picture.

[Starnum]

I see, very nice. I didn't even know you could drag bodies or take pictures.

[Eldo]

Well, he took a picture with his camera or something. I didn't know you could grab bodies though, wasn't in the manual, I don't think. But it's quite amazing how you didn't get any blood on them and how their body parts are still retained.

[Starnum]

Yeah, seriously. I didn't even know they were dead until he said something, lol.

You can use the cameras! I didn't even consider it.

[Eldo]

Was they killed with melee? Because it looks like it. Or if they were shot from the waist down.

If I'm right I should work in forensics.

[War Machine]

I killed them with the combat shotgun. A couple of shots to the torso does the job, and I took the picture of the TV screen with the macbook's webcam.

You can grab any object with the R3 button and move them around, all you have to do is point at a dead body, press R3 and move them, pressing R3 again to let go. It's in the very beginning of the game where they tell you to grab toys from your toy box.

[Dominion]

I was surprised that this game was so good... I had many doubts about where it was going but when i finally .... appropriated it i found it to be a very good game indeed.... everything i posted in the previous thread i made, im stil peeved didnt make it into the final product however what was there was good enough.... though I spent longer on oblivion

any of you guys try out the nood mod yet?

couple things till pissed me off:
Dad is invincible: the whole point of an rpg is that you shouldnt have to rely on an NPC survivng in order to continue playing a game

kids is invincible: its a post-apoc world yet bethesda still wanted to go the easy/safe route by making kids ded-proof... there were so many opportunities for depth of story as well as multiple quests that could have been derived from being able to kill kids
ex. child soldiers - they exist irl... nuff said
or you have a kid with a wasteland bunny

oh yea and the game had serious clipping issues where bullets would hit the wall i was standing behind rather that going over... where my crosshairs were pointed....

also vats couldnt give 2 shits as to whether a target moved behind a wall... there was no "vats- cancel" button so a few times I wasted ammo and AP while waiting for VATS to finish wasting my time

I liked the inclusion of harold

as for body grabbing... i killed that tenpenny clown and took his clothes then i dumped his body over the banister so no one would know now i look like a red coat

as for the perks... i found most of to be monumentally useless so i spent most of my levels on stats increase.... seriously some of these perks sound like they came outta mad gabs.... yea mad gabs...

[Eldo]

Now, I don't mean to pick on you or anything, just on the points you made. Some of the stuff I say later might sound a bit negative but it's only to your points and not at you.

couple things till pissed me off:
Dad is invincible: the whole point of an rpg is that you shouldnt have to rely on an NPC survivng in order to continue playing a game

Well, to nitpick, that's not the whole point of an RPG. Yes, but it's still a linear game. However, the same can be said about other games like BG2 as a example. The important characters have a 'Save VS Death' on them to stop you from killing them and not progressing on with the story. But the point of the story is that you needed the information and the skills by your father in order to progress further into the plot, namely to operate the purifier. Dr. Lee would not made the same progress on her own. It's not a purely open-ended game as one says. I remember Blade Runner (the adventure game), where I killed someone and as a result, I was stuck for ages and the story would not progress. They probably made the dad invincible so to make sure he doesn't get killed at all, since all the plot lines deal with him later. In my game, I can't really remember him getting shot at or anything, since I didn't escort him at all. The problem with being completely open-ended is that the game cannot always anticipate what players would do.

kids is invincible: its a post-apoc world yet bethesda still wanted to go the easy/safe route by making kids ded-proof... there were so many opportunities for depth of story as well as multiple quests that could have been derived from being able to kill kids
ex. child soldiers - they exist irl... nuff said
or you have a kid with a wasteland bunny

Are you seriously pissed off because you can't kill kids? What's the bloody point of that? Yes, child soldiers exist in real life, but so is every other thing that was not incorporated into the game. I'm not going to nitpick at all. I don't see that as a valid criticism at all (not being able to kill kids). I don't care what other people say; killing kids is not absolutely necessary, and would not add depth to the story at ALL (unless you want to cite an example, I don't see how wiping the kid town out would contribute to the plot besides wiping the town of kids). And if you said no child has died in the game, then not if I recall properly. In Paradise Falls, the slavers actually blew a child's head off for escaping (because they have a explosive collar or something).

oh yea and the game had serious clipping issues where bullets would hit the wall i was standing behind rather that going over... where my crosshairs were pointed....

That only really happened when I have an assault weapon or machine gun, and never really noticed with hunting rifles and stuff. I haven't really handled a weapon so I can't decide on it's realism. But I guess that can be valid, in a way.

also vats couldnt give 2 shits as to whether a target moved behind a wall... there was no "vats- cancel" button so a few times I wasted ammo and AP while waiting for VATS to finish wasting my time

I usually take that as...well, like in Street Fighter games, where people have their supers and stuff, and the other person blocks at the time which kinda cancels your super out. That's what it was like for VATS to me. You can't always win with VATS. Just lousy timing, I guess.

[Starnum]

and I took the picture of the TV screen with the macbook's webcam.

Ohh, lol.

Anyway, I think it's weird when NPC's are invincible, but it's better than having to keep them alive. I hate it when NPC's go all willy-nilly and get themselves killed.

As for killing children in the game, I'm perfectly fine with not being able to, lol.

There was a little bit of clipping, but nothing I'd complain about, and I can be a stickler for aesthetics. As for not being able to cancel out of VATS, these things happen. That's why I try not to combo a lot of shots together when I don't have a clear shot. A lot of times I'll only do one or two shots at a time, if there are obstructions in the way. Overall, I still think its a great game. Seeing as how I never played the first two, I guess you can take my opinion from a standalone viewpoint. Though I do think the ending could have been more detailed and evolved, like the other games endings were described. I would've really liked that. I thought the ending fell a little weak, but it wasn't terribly. At least it didn't ruin the game for me. Really bad endings can do that.

[spoiler]One of my favorite parts though, was at the end, when they activated the giant robot. That kicked ass![/spoiler]

[Dominion]

Well im glad i can get a chance to advocate for killing kids... Also, the only other thing that was left out of F3 other than killing kids was sex (and sex related infections, like in Tactics). They had drugs after all which some might say (The Austrailian Gov. for one) is the real issue.

Child soldiers:
they are located in Little Lamp Light (thats the name right?). Kids with guns ("easy does it") = child soldiers. When you talk to each of the kids they say things like "I shot 'this' in the head" or "there's monsters round back that we gotta keep from getting in" so already there is a set up for a more mature tone when dealing with these kids as they already seem well acquainted with survival.
The PC could be given the choice to train said children to better defend themselves by taking them out into the wilderness, thus building up a bond between child-npc, settlement and the PC. Furthermore, when the child comes under attack there would be, for most people, the urge to help defend said child, moreso for the fact that the NPC represents innocence that some people still cherish. (although if you ask me, ignorance is innocence.) Should the child die, the PC may feel regret for letting such a thing happen.

There could have been another location similar to Camp Lamp Light but reminiscent to that of "Lord of the Flies" where all the NPCs are children that have run amok and use they weapons they found to terrorize another nearby settlement of adult survivors. When the PC arrives to the adult settlement, it comes under attack and, should the PC help out, he'll find that the attackers are children. Depending on the PC's actions during this initial encounter, the disposition of the adults and childen will sway. Later on, the PC may find out that the children actually belong to some of the adults whom they terrorize and the reason they cause so much suffering is because they were abused or something. It would then fall to the PC to decide what to do:
1) kill all the kids (because some of the shit they did is just plain fuct)
2) try to advocate for peace and reconciliation
3) kill off the adults (because some of the shit they did is just plain fuct), or
4) cause a "war" between the two settlements, allowing fate (or in-game computations) to decide who will survive.

Transporter:

the PC may stumble across a half dead, filthy child-beast in the wastes and after an initial theft (of food or something), the PC would have to opportunity to
1) kill said kid
2) give kid food and/or tell him/her to scram
3) offer to find kid a place to live (kinda like that other f3 quest cept this one isnt so happy an ending) then soon finds out that the kid is the missing son/daughter of a crime family, who proceed to lay waste to the town (the PC chose) for "stealing" their heir.
4) find out that the kid is the son/daugther of some crazy gangster-head from New Reno and, being the kind of PC that thinks, may decide to use the kid for ransom or as leverage to ending an ongoing feud between two crime families

This is a good example because the PC is given the choice of using an individual for gain rather than just the obligatory "im a good guy in real life and i care what people think of me when i do terrible things to virtual representations of humans." Also, that "Child at Heart" perk would actually have a use other than getting the "Wazer Wifle".

Lone Wolf and Cub:

The PC could end up having a kid and the mother/father is murdered, possibly even the child, for some reason... the PC must now have his vengeance... with child in tow. This could be a quest that is just one level below the main quest in terms of importance to the story by adding a more personal level to the entire experience.
Bethesda would also actually be able to make better use of time as a factor in gameplay and story telling as the child would grow with each passing "day" and since days only last like.... 20 minutes in-game the child would grow up fast.

These are a few that I've thought up and they don't all necessarily fall into the category of "massacre and savagery." What I wanted was options, choices; nothing more. If there are kids in the game then I want to >feel< like they belong in there and are not just some lame bullshit plug that was only implemented to silence the people who wanted killable children to begin with. I want their presence to cause me to think about how to handle them rather than just use them for another level-up.

I was on the Bethesda forums and I observed the arguments between the two factions. Most of the people on those forums who were against killing kids voiced the same questions of "Why would you want to do that?" or "What's the point?" or "It's wrong so it shouldnt be implemented." There were a lot, and I mean A LOT, of fence-sitters though I think they really just wanted to see the game made even if it meant losing out on content.
The point is immersion. If a company can create a rapport between an NPC and PC then that adds new levels of immersion into the mix. The PC would not view their cherished NPC as a "meat shield" or as "fodder" but as a "comrade."

Like I said, I really only wanted the choice to do such things and what do you know, Bethesda has denied me this.
But its cool. I realized long, long ago that some people like to hide from certain aspects of life and do not want it to trickle into their media (bubble).

This, however, I leave up to the mod community. They've already got kids to "rag-doll" when their hp runs out so its only a matter of time.

[Starnum]

Wow, that WoT is mighty enough to revival one of my own, well done.

I see what you're saying, though. I actually think that what you're saying would add an extra level of depth, when you think about it all like that. I am all for freedom of expression in video games, but you know some people want to censor it as much as possible. I may be fine with not being able to kill children, but if it were possible for them to die, that wouldn't offend me. By making the game as realistic as possible, I think that actually enhances the experience (except for fanfare stuff like !'s marks over people's heads in MGS! ). So in some ways I can understand and agree with what you're saying. I was disappointed that when you paid the chick for sex, you just woke up with her in the bed. They could have done better with that. I can actually relate with the realistic gritty content, because I think that with our rating systems, minors shouldn't be playing Mature rated games. I know I'll be using my own discretion with my own children. Hence we should be able to make our games however we want. I usually expect video games to be limited in many ways, but this game was actually pretty complex. Sure it's not perfect, but it's still one of my personal fav's for '08.

[Eldo]

Um, let me get this straight. You want some child-killing content and quests that were not originally planned for the game? You want an option to kill said child if he/she pisses you off? All of the content you listed were not originally planned for the game and you want something like that in it? What the...? How has Bethasda robbed you of anything if they were never to be included in the game? They robbed you of your fan fic/fantasy? You're talking about implementing things that would be quite difficult to actually include, like ageing children. Why would the child age, and not you or the world around you? If 20 minutes in-game would have the child grow up fast, wouldn't leaving the computer on for ages kill the character off due to old age? So wouldn't the entire game give you a mere 10 hours of gameplay before the character dies?

Let me get this straight. You want the option to kill kids, but not that you'll necessarily do it. Then why the hell have it in the first place? You want 'kids' to actually have a 'purpose' in the game? Not being able to kill them is not providing them with a purpose? Their non-participation in an all out war against adults (and in the storyline (Little Lamplight) having no desire to, nor was it ever written in) makes them non-realistic and have no purpose? Dude, there's a tonne of adult characters which have no real purpose in the game. That's why they aren't important characters.

I'm also disappointed that Fallout 3 didn't have Superman and Batman in it. No, I'm disappointed that the mutants didn't have heat vision or have wings or have metallic claws with a healing factor. No, I'm more disappointed with the fact that I didn't get a brahmin as an NPC. Goddamn Bethasda ruining my fun.

The parties advocating children killing have really weak arguments, in my opinion. Child killing in Fallout 1 and 2 didn't have any implications or character development (I'm not even sure if you could kill children in the first two, haven't really tried it at whim), yet people are arguing they should have that level of sophistication. What? Really? Should Fallout 3 be like the Sims, where you have to eat (yes, I know you can eat food, but with a hunger bar and stuff), go to the toilet (yes, I know you can go to the toilet, but with the hygiene bar and stuff), be entertained, find a job, etc? Because you know, in real life, you do have to do that. In fact, I'm disappointed that those features weren't added in because it would have provided depth and relate more to the character.

[War Machine]

You also forget the rating systems, child killing is a sure way of achieving an Adults Only rating or outright ban.

[Eldo]

This child killing argument is like how Marvel doesn't have smoking in their comics. Really, do I need to see a person smoking to read their comics? Do my enjoyment derive from them smoking or anyway minimised due to lack of smoking content? Nope.

[Starnum]

I can see both sides of the argument. Do I need for the children to be able to die to enjoy the game, no. Would I allow it, and possibly be intrigued by a situation wherein a child died, yeah of course. I guess I'm on the fence. Plus there is the matter of the game being banned in other countries if not our own. I mean you have to do with the censors whether you like it or not. I'm not for or against it, but I do like it when games top my expectations about what is going to be possible, and what will be shown. That doesn't mean I need it or feel slighted that it's not possible. I mean if it wasn't meant to be in the game, then that's different. Every game can be made better than it was intended by adding deeper levels of interative content, whether it be trying to protect a child from a monster, catching an STD from a prostitute, or whatever. Anyway, I'm kind of liberal and think we should have freedom of expression in our video games, so it's really up to the designers. Beyond that, we can come up with ways to make every game better. We just have to appreciate a great game for what it is, including it's limits and boundaries. MGS4 isn't an infalable perfect video game, but I really think it's like the best game I've played so far. I have played some other really amazing games that are right up there with it too, and Fallout 3 is one of them. I can only imagine what other new games may surpass them in the future.

[newbified]

Bethesda has to draw lines somewhere.

They are after all a game company which sank not only millions of dollars into the development of Fallout 3, but also into acquiring the rights (minus MMO's) of the Fallout franchise from Interplay. The way the game was marketed was not directly to those people who were a part of that very niche market who had played the previous games prior to release, but more a general audience. And I swear the fanboy bitching on their official forums was ridiculous. Those people make Fallout fans look like nothing but a bunch of douchebags. I remember when the 11 page in depth magazine spot came out the waves of people throwing condemnation on Bethesda a year before the game was even released...

I've played each Fallout, well before 3 came out, and I was a huge fan of the new installment.

If Bethesda went right out and made compromising sex scenes and child killing, not only will it be slapped with an AO rating (if approved at all since after all there's just so many AO games that carve themselves out a good piece of the market share) but there will probably be outright bans from several countries and several organizations, as if there weren't already.

Hell, Australia banned the game in its early release because of the rampant use of drugs (correct me if I'm wrong on this Eldo). I believe with the released version it's not an issue anymore, but nevertheless, if something like drug use alone can make an entire continent ban an single game, why would you want to pile on more?

And as far as making any NPC kill able, I really don't see the point. As well as the Fallout franchise I'm a large fan of the Elder Scrolls franchise as well, and in games such as say, Morrowind, you could indeed kill any NPC in the world. However were he an important NPC to the progression of the main story line the game would tell you you've severed the lines of fate, and basically congratulate you on being fucked for completing the main storyline and hoping you enjoy loading your game for the next 30 seconds.

The only real issues I had with Fallout 3 were the fact that 20 was the maximum level, and that you can't continue after you finish the main storyline. There's really no reason to continue it from a storyline standpoint, but it would still be fun to walk around occasionally, find those bobble heads you're missing, or just wander the wastes looking for off-beat humour.

Still, amazing game. GotY for sure in my opinion. I got F3 and Fable 2 at the same time, and I beat Fable 2 in about 3 days while I still play Fallout 3 occasionally. Level 20, all bobble heads, just before the final encounter, and I still find time to not only play it, but enjoy it. I should really get it for the PC though. If there's one thing Bethesda does well it's community input and third party software creation. Always loved the Construction Sets that came with Morrowind and Oblivion. Nothing like being able to make your own NPCs/Quests/Islands/Monsters/Weapons.

[Starnum]

Yeah, I agree with you on that. It'd be cool if you could keep playing after the main story is concluded. Also, what do you think if they went online for Fallout 4? It seems like it could work really well as an online game, so why not go there next time. Just something to think and possibly converse about.

[newbified]

Well it depends on what form of intellectual property rights are associated with the Fallout MMO that Interplay retained. Depending on the stipulations Interplay could be the only company with the ability to make any form of online play associated with the Fallout franchise.

And honestly, has anyone played the demo for Van Buren that Interplay released? They had been working on that game for I believe 3 years and it felt just like the regular Fallout. I understand it's what the fans like and are used to, but if you can't evolve in something as ever-changing as the gaming industry, you have no business making games.

Unless your games continue to be completely intuitive. Which I'm sorry, but Interplays Fallout the 5th time around, was not.