Fallout 3 - close but no cigar
David T. Bilek
preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
under the bridge.
The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
and isn't quite.
There are two primary problems with FO3:
1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
guess).
You can rest pretty much at any time to heal up all the way. Even if
you couldn't, stimpacks are so plentiful that there is no reason to
ever be at anything but full strength. Money is a joke; I stopped
looting partway through the game because I had so much money, drugs,
stimpacks, and ammo that it was a waste of time. And so on.
So the game is a joke, difficulty wise. It's a good enough game that
this doesn't ruin it completely, but it does keep it from being a
great game.
2) The levelling up process and perks, a great strength of earlier
Fallouts, is stupid and unbalanced. Many perks are useless and
counterproductive. Why would you take "Daddy's Boy" for +5 science,
+5 medicine (10 skill points) when you can take Intense Training, put
a point into intelligence, and get a lot more than 10 skill points? Or
the Educated perk where you get 3 extra skill points per level? I had
like a 9 intelligence + Educated perk and I ended up with so many
skill points that I was putting them into crap I didn't need because
everything I did use was maxxed out well before level 20.
And stuff like "Lady Killer" is an underused mess. Yeah, you get 10%
damage bonus to female opponents. Whoopee. The real draw is supposed
to be the extra dialogue options. Except there aren't any. Oh, ok,
there are like three. Two of which you can get the same result by
using the SPEECH skill... and anybody who enjoys exploring dialogue to
the point that they "waste" a perk on something like Lady Killer is
going to be maxxing out SPEECH anyway. So, basically, you get one
extra dialogue over the course of the whole game.
No. Try again.
+25% caps from looting? So I can sit around with 20,000 caps instead
of 16,000 caps? +30% (or whatever) health from stimpacks? So that I
can stockpile 400 stimpacks instead of 300? SIGN ME UP!
And so on.
The whole balance of the game is off, and little tweaks here and there
would have made it into a classic. Instead it plays like a classic
for a few hours until it becomes apparent how trivial it all is. At
which point you are playing just to see what interesting thing is over
the next ridge. Which is fun, and can make a good game.
And it goes; I've spent a lot of time with FO3. But it doesn't make
a great one. Which is a shame. Because it wouldn't have taken that
much to make it great.
-David
Mark Morrison
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
>difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
>there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
>need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
>out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
>and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
>guess).
I must be a crap fighter, then, becasue I've had a few times in my
second playthough where I've been very low on stimpacks, and health,
forcing me to sneak to safety, so I can go rest up and resupply.
I'm only playing on Normal, too.
I do agree that the Lady Killer/Black Widow seems to be very underused
- my first character used it on Burke, in Megaton, and never again for
the rest of that game. I imagine the 10% extra damage against men had
more of an effect...
David T. Bilek
>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:12:37 -0800, David T. Bilek
><david...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
>>difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
>>there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
>>need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
>>out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
>>and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
>>guess).
>
>I must be a crap fighter, then, becasue I've had a few times in my
>second playthough where I've been very low on stimpacks, and health,
>forcing me to sneak to safety, so I can go rest up and resupply.
>
>I'm only playing on Normal, too.
Weird. I don't think I'm particularly awesome and I had hundreds of
stimpacks by the end. I never really take much damage from enemy
fire; the few times I had trouble was because I forgot that cars
EXPLODE and unwisely took cover behind them.
What's your character like? I maxxed out small guns very quickly, had
high agility, and depending on range mostly just blew off the enemy
heads with a sniper rifle or combat shotgun in VATS.
The only time I felt any challenge at all was the first couple
encounters with Deathclaws until I realized that it was way better to
cripple a leg before going for headshots. Once the leg is crippled
you can just back away firing with a shotgun or .44.
Groups of mutants or raiders just means more corpses to loot after
their heads all get blown off.
-David
David T. Bilek
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>Mark Morrison <bl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:12:37 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
>>>difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
>>>there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
>>>need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
>>>out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
>>>and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
>>>guess).
>>
>>I must be a crap fighter, then, becasue I've had a few times in my
>>second playthough where I've been very low on stimpacks, and health,
>>forcing me to sneak to safety, so I can go rest up and resupply.
>>
>>I'm only playing on Normal, too.
>
>Weird. I don't think I'm particularly awesome and I had hundreds of
>stimpacks by the end. I never really take much damage from enemy
>fire; the few times I had trouble was because I forgot that cars
>EXPLODE and unwisely took cover behind them.
>
>What's your character like? I maxxed out small guns very quickly, had
>high agility, and depending on range mostly just blew off the enemy
>heads with a sniper rifle or combat shotgun in VATS.
>
I should also note that my DR is usually around 70 while wearing the
Ranger Combat Armor and whatever helmet currently looks coolest.
Plugging a couple perks into the +10% DR helped, and then Cyborg when
available. I think my DR with no armor is +30 and if I had to do it
over I'd go to +40 or even +50. +50 would make my damage reduction
stay at 85 or so even if the combat armor gets shot up big time.
Taking only 15% damage from incoming fire means you don't even need to
take cover most of the time.
I think the way I'd do it is get rid of the +10% exp perk (completely
useless since you max out XP way before you're done with all the
quests if you do side stuff) and Lady Killer and put both those perks
in the +10% damage reduction. I think I'd be pretty much unstoppable.
Combine constant 85% damage reduction with maxxed out small guns,
energy weapons, and repair plus 8 or 9 agility + commando, sniper,
action boy, and Grim Reaper's Sprint and it would have been even
easier than it was on my first play through.
-David
Gerry Quinn
david...@att.net says...
> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
> under the bridge.
One word: "2008"
> The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
> and isn't quite.
>
> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>
> 1) The game is trivially easy.
It could be argued that CRPGs *should* be easy... In other words, that
developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
skills.
- Gerry Quinn
morvak
> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
Oh my god this is getting old.
> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
> under the bridge.
No, you mean you woulder prefer a time machine to warp you back to the
early 90's so you could play what is now an antiquated time.
This is akin to saying Donkey Kong is not Pong.
>
> The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
> and isn't quite.
>
> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>
> 1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
> difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
> there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
> need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
> out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
> and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
> guess).
The crappy console port. Now THAT'S original.
>
> You can rest pretty much at any time to heal up all the way. Even if
> you couldn't, stimpacks are so plentiful that there is no reason to
> ever be at anything but full strength. Money is a joke; I stopped
> looting partway through the game because I had so much money, drugs,
> stimpacks, and ammo that it was a waste of time. And so on.
*yawn*
>
> So the game is a joke, difficulty wise. It's a good enough game that
> this doesn't ruin it completely, but it does keep it from being a
> great game.
Wow, what insight.
>
> 2) The levelling up process and perks, a great strength of earlier
> Fallouts, is stupid and unbalanced. Many perks are useless and
> counterproductive. Why would you take "Daddy's Boy" for +5 science,
> +5 medicine (10 skill points) when you can take Intense Training, put
> a point into intelligence, and get a lot more than 10 skill points? Or
> the Educated perk where you get 3 extra skill points per level? I had
> like a 9 intelligence + Educated perk and I ended up with so many
> skill points that I was putting them into crap I didn't need because
> everything I did use was maxxed out well before level 20.
*yawn*
Let's just have 1 perk, the perk that David likes. This way the game
is not replayable or offers and kind of variance for everyone else.
>
> And stuff like "Lady Killer" is an underused mess. Yeah, you get 10%
> damage bonus to female opponents. Whoopee. The real draw is supposed
> to be the extra dialogue options. Except there aren't any. Oh, ok,
> there are like three. Two of which you can get the same result by
> using the SPEECH skill... and anybody who enjoys exploring dialogue to
> the point that they "waste" a perk on something like Lady Killer is
> going to be maxxing out SPEECH anyway. So, basically, you get one
> extra dialogue over the course of the whole game.
>
> No. Try again.
Oh, so now you're the gamer's advocate? Just because YOU know that
anyone who enjoys exploring dialogue means the perk is a waste. Nice.
>
> +25% caps from looting? So I can sit around with 20,000 caps instead
> of 16,000 caps? +30% (or whatever) health from stimpacks? So that I
> can stockpile 400 stimpacks instead of 300? SIGN ME UP!
>
> And so on.
>
> The whole balance of the game is off, and little tweaks here and there
> would have made it into a classic. Instead it plays like a classic
> for a few hours until it becomes apparent how trivial it all is. At
> which point you are playing just to see what interesting thing is over
> the next ridge. Which is fun, and can make a good game.
>
> And it goes; I've spent a lot of time with FO3. But it doesn't make
> a great one. Which is a shame. Because it wouldn't have taken that
> much to make it great.
>
> -David
Too bad your opinion is the minority. What a shame. Most of us are
enjoying a finely crafted Fallout game.
David T. Bilek
>> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>>
>> 1) The game is trivially easy.
>
>It could be argued that CRPGs *should* be easy... In other words, that
>developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
>skills.
>
That only works if it's a game like Torment where the story and
character interaction is superbly developed. A sandoxy game like FO3
doesn't have those things to lean on. A CRPG without much challenge,
without a lot of in depth character interaction, and without a long
involved storyline is not a CRPG, it's a glorified slideshow where you
wander around and look at the pretty pictures.
You want to make another game like Torment and I won't care if the
combat is easy as pie. If, on the other hand, you want a game like
FO3 to be great and you need to make it a lot more difficult.
-David
Matt v3.3
> Let's just have 1 perk, the perk that David likes. This way the game
> is not replayable or offers and kind of variance for everyone else.
Way to dismiss peoples opinions! You are steadily moving into *fanboy*
territory, Morvak. Just keep up that sarcasm ... ;)
--
};> Matt v3.3 <:{
David T. Bilek
Besides, he's being dumb. I am arguing that a wider variety of perks
should be useful and interesting. Quite the opposite of what he seems
to be implying; that I think everyone should take the same perks.
But I suppose reading comprehension is too much to ask for.
There are too many useless perks. I'm not arguing for fewer perks,
I'm arguing for more non-useless ones. Putting in a bazillion +5 to
skill A and skill B is neither interesting nor useful. More perks
like LADY KILLER and CHILD AT HEART would be very interesting... if
they were made use of. As I said, I don't consider 3 uses over the
course of the entire game... two of which can be duplicated by having
a high speech skill... to be adequate.
-David
WDS
> 1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
> difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
> there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
> need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
> out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
> and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
> guess).
I played all the way through and even at the end I still died. I have
no doubt if you optimize your character for combat the game could be
pretty easy. But that's true of most RPGS, FO 1 and 2 as well.
> You can rest pretty much at any time to heal up all the way. Even if
> you couldn't, stimpacks are so plentiful that there is no reason to
> ever be at anything but full strength. Money is a joke; I stopped
> looting partway through the game because I had so much money, drugs,
> stimpacks, and ammo that it was a waste of time. And so on.
You can't rest at any time unless you are at a bed. And partway
through Fallout (2 for sure, I don't remember 1) you don't need to
loot any more either. I can reember having 10s of thousands of rounds
of ammo in the trunk of the car and piles of other stuff. Hundreds of
stimpacks, too, plus the advanced ones.
I guess Fallout 1/2 sucked too, eh?
John Lewis
<david...@att.net> wrote:
Well, when the editor is released, you can fix all these problems.
Some of the rest of us treat FO3 as a RPG, deliberately not acquiring
uber-weapons skills, but playing the game in an adventure-exploration
mode, concentrating on experiencing more of the intertwining
storylines. Sure, you can blast through and finish the Main Quest and
pass on to the next FPS, but you are missing 95% of the adventure and
story elements in FO3. There are roughly 12 major side-quests and also
100 mini-quests.
You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player. Sure FO3 will
play as a FPS of sorts, but that is not its true focus. I am currently
playing the game deliberately as a weak "small-arms warrior' but
building good sneak and speech skills and having a blast adventuring
through the game. I have completed a few stages of the Main Quest, but
keep on getting diverted into some very interesting side-quests.
In FO3 can start up as many new characters in parallel as you like
and access the save-games of any of them without exiting the game to
desktop. If the humor takes me, I might start off another character in
a few days times with the intent to build him/her into a FPS
uber-warrior and blast my way through the game... or I might not....
The joy of FO3 is that the type of in-game character,skills chosen and
style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional character
linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice being the
game's difficulty-level.
Bethsoft may decide to tweak the skills in FO3 in response to customer
feedback via update patches, or when they release the expansion that
is currently in development (no release date set yet). Certainly when
they release the editor, the mod community will have a 'field-day'.
Mods to Oblivion - some of which helped rectify the most glaring
problems with "level-up" now number in the 1000's.
So start to flex your mod-muscles by practicing on Oblivion and you
can then be ready to take on FO3, as the mod-tooling will be very
similar. You sure seem to be certain as to what needs fixing....
John Lewis
>-David
Gregory E. Garland
news:hsuhh450nfkvj6j5g...@4ax.com...
> I am arguing that a wider variety of perks should be useful and
> interesting.
Perks is perks.
>
> There are too many useless perks. I'm not arguing for fewer perks,
> I'm arguing for more non-useless ones.
>
Then your argument is incoherent. The fundamental aspect of an rpg
is that you must chose how your character develops his/her skills; the
abstract elements of a particular rpg system are independant of any
particular game they may be used in, despite whatever historical
association they may have. The mere fact that you can choose
wrongly in the context of a particular game is not a defect; it is
a feature.
Nostromo
> On Nov 10, 5:12 pm, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
>> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
>
> Oh my god this is getting old.
Not as decrepit as your fanboyism.
>> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
>> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
>> under the bridge.
>
> No, you mean you woulder prefer a time machine to warp you back to the
> early 90's so you could play what is now an antiquated time.
>
> This is akin to saying Donkey Kong is not Pong.
Step aside, the *real* Fallout has finally arrived!? FFS, you've lost
the plot entirely now lol! Only took a coupe mths too. Good job.
> Too bad your opinion is the minority. What a shame. Most of us are
> enjoying a finely crafted Fallout game.
Tick, tock, tick, tock.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Thanks for the non-fanboy review David.
So, it's like Oblivion with guns + some extra shit they couldn't make
up, so they stole/bought it, butchered it & spread it around far too
thin to hold water? Gotcha. As I said from the start, these yahoos at
Beth have NFI how to make a real *roleplaying* game, just wet sandpits
where the emperors with no clothes get to play around with themselves.
--
Nostromo
Markku Herd
> you couldn't, stimpacks are so plentiful that there is no reason to
> ever be at anything but full strength.
I actually prefer it this way, being able to "iron man" the game through by
playing smartly adds immersion to a RPG. Constant dying and reloading
belongs to FPS's.
I'd still prefer more limited access to the inventory during combat. Eating
huge ten-course meals between gunshots isn't exactly realistic. Something
for a mod, surely.
- MJH
Nostromo
Hey, I like a bit of enthusiasm as much as the next guy, but this is
getting beyond want-to-vomit-sickly-sweet! I'm actually more likely to
play the game based on mixed reviews like Justisaur's or David's here,
than nothing-but-positive-tunnel-vision drek from most others. I think
my bullshit-meter has been finely honed over years of watching AbUseNet
rose-coloured glasses break & shatter the hype-o-meter! :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Now there's a Dilbert moment if I ever saw one lol!
--
Nostromo
Greg Johnson
wrote:
>> You can rest pretty much at any time to heal up all the way. Even if
>> you couldn't, stimpacks are so plentiful that there is no reason to
>> ever be at anything but full strength.
>
>I actually prefer it this way, being able to "iron man" the game through by
>playing smartly adds immersion to a RPG. Constant dying and reloading
>belongs to FPS's.
I have to agree with this. If you have to make near-perfect decisions
all the time or fail, there's not much room left for roleplaying.
However, I'm certain that the mods for people who want a much harder
experience will arrive sooner or later, I'm just not one of the target
audience for that kind of thing.
David T. Bilek
Reading comprehension is difficult. How many times in my post did I
say that FO3 is a good game?
-David
David T. Bilek
That's a ridiculous argument. How about adding in 15 more perks that
each give you +1 to a particular skill, then? After all, perks is
perks and the mere fact that you could choose wrongly is not a defect.
-David
David T. Bilek
I live but to serve.
As I said, it's a good, immersive game. But it isn't a great one.
I do find it ironic that people are reacting as though I said the game
sucks. How is making any criticism equivalent to saying the game
sucks, particulary when I repeatedly said it's a good game right there
in my criticisms?
Fan boys make baby jesus cry.
-David
David T. Bilek
Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am. The
problem with FO3 is that it is neither an excellent RPG nor a very
good FPS. It's a mishmash of both.
>Sure FO3 will
>play as a FPS of sorts, but that is not its true focus. I am currently
>playing the game deliberately as a weak "small-arms warrior' but
>building good sneak and speech skills and having a blast adventuring
>through the game. I have completed a few stages of the Main Quest, but
>keep on getting diverted into some very interesting side-quests.
I completed every quest in the game. The problem is not that there
isn't enough to do, the problem is that none of it is challenging. You
can play for hours and hours and never find anything difficult.
>
>In FO3 can start up as many new characters in parallel as you like
>and access the save-games of any of them without exiting the game to
>desktop. If the humor takes me, I might start off another character in
>
>a few days times with the intent to build him/her into a FPS
>uber-warrior and blast my way through the game... or I might not....
And unless you deliberately cripple your character, you still won't
find any of it challenging. Fun, maybe, but not challenging.
>
>The joy of FO3 is that the type of in-game character,skills chosen and
>style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional character
>linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice being the
>game's difficulty-level.
Like I said, I'm a CRPG purist. Sandbox type "RPGs" like the Elder
Scrolls stuff are mostly an excuse not to have to make an interesting
plotline or good character interaction. It's a heck of a lot easier
to make an engine and then tell people to create their own game than
it is to craft a masterwork like Planescape: Torment or even a more
traditional RPG like Baldur's Gate II.
Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
-David
Gregory E. Garland
You have merely proven that you haven't understood the argument.
If you added 15 perks that no one would choose to use how does that
affect the play of this particular game? If you added 15,000 perks
that no one would chose how would that affect the play of this
particular game? The history of rpg's is that you design the role-playing
system, and then let games be built that utilize that particular
role-playing
system. There is a legacy situation that tends to make game designers
include features of older systems which may be utterly useless in the
particular game they are working on, but the history is that the role-
playing system is independent of the game. A very good game when
matched to a particular role-playing system should present the player
with difficult choices.
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
>Nostromo <nost...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>Matt v3.3 wrote:
>>> morvak typed:
>>>> Let's just have 1 perk, the perk that David likes. This way the game
>>>> is not replayable or offers and kind of variance for everyone else.
>>>
>>> Way to dismiss peoples opinions! You are steadily moving into *fanboy*
>>> territory, Morvak. Just keep up that sarcasm ... ;)
>>
>>Hey, I like a bit of enthusiasm as much as the next guy, but this is
>>getting beyond want-to-vomit-sickly-sweet! I'm actually more likely to
>>play the game based on mixed reviews like Justisaur's or David's here,
>>than nothing-but-positive-tunnel-vision drek from most others. I think
>>my bullshit-meter has been finely honed over years of watching AbUseNet
>>rose-coloured glasses break & shatter the hype-o-meter! :)
>
>I live but to serve.
I'm here to kick arse & chew bubble-gum! ;)
>As I said, it's a good, immersive game. But it isn't a great one.
I accept that at face value, with the caveats that I just don't think it has
enough rping for my tastes & enough 'Fallout' to be worthy of being called a
sequel. But we've done this to death already :).
>I do find it ironic that people are reacting as though I said the game
>sucks. How is making any criticism equivalent to saying the game
>sucks, particulary when I repeatedly said it's a good game right there
>in my criticisms?
>
>Fan boys make baby jesus cry.
They're the new tv evangelists...usenet FO3 fanbois...roflmao!
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
>I completed every quest in the game. The problem is not that there
>isn't enough to do, the problem is that none of it is challenging. You
>can play for hours and hours and never find anything difficult.
No challenge, no cohesive storyline, no decent consequence/irony/morality
plays, clunky hybrid engine, sub-par perks & leveling...if it smells like
shit...<G>
>>In FO3 can start up as many new characters in parallel as you like
>>and access the save-games of any of them without exiting the game to
>>desktop. If the humor takes me, I might start off another character in
>>
>>a few days times with the intent to build him/her into a FPS
>>uber-warrior and blast my way through the game... or I might not....
>
>And unless you deliberately cripple your character, you still won't
>find any of it challenging. Fun, maybe, but not challenging.
Which is ok to do if you've played an uncrippled character that was
challenging & then you 'beat' the game multiple times, know all the tricks &
want to up the diff level artificially beyond what the game offers...far
better suited to games like D2 than pure crpgs...except FO3 ain't that
obviously.
>>The joy of FO3 is that the type of in-game character,skills chosen and
>>style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional character
>>linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice being the
>>game's difficulty-level.
>
>Like I said, I'm a CRPG purist. Sandbox type "RPGs" like the Elder
>Scrolls stuff are mostly an excuse not to have to make an interesting
>plotline or good character interaction. It's a heck of a lot easier
>to make an engine and then tell people to create their own game than
>it is to craft a masterwork like Planescape: Torment or even a more
>traditional RPG like Baldur's Gate II.
Or even FO1/2 - the real ones. :)
I fear your pearls are falling on pig's ears.
>Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
Amen!
--
Nostromo
JAB
> john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>> You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
> Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
> doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
Oh dear ... do you know johns by any chance?
JAB
So then Nos you got a copy of the game yet?
John Lewis
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>
>>You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
>Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
>doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
... energetically thumping chest.....
> The
>problem with FO3 is that it is neither an excellent RPG nor a very
>good FPS. It's a mishmash of both.
>
>>Sure FO3 will
>>play as a FPS of sorts, but that is not its true focus. I am currently
>>playing the game deliberately as a weak "small-arms warrior' but
>>building good sneak and speech skills and having a blast adventuring
>>through the game. I have completed a few stages of the Main Quest, but
>>keep on getting diverted into some very interesting side-quests.
>
>I completed every quest in the game.
What amazing stamina... but how do you know? Played the game with one
hand and with a complete game guide in the other ?? You are aware
that many of the quests do branch quite differently, subject to
various conditions......(no spoilers..). Nice to know that you played
through the complete game with several different character types. Such
a dedicated soul....
Yep, you sure know how to play a CRPG...
>The problem is not that there
>isn't enough to do, the problem is that none of it is challenging. You
>can play for hours and hours and never find anything difficult.
>
Really, you must be a truly brilliant player not to get killed a few
times during the game, and never have to replay a quest because you
screwed up... Or maybe you mean something totally different
by your statement "never find anything difficult" ?
>>
>>In FO3 can start up as many new characters in parallel as you like
>>and access the save-games of any of them without exiting the game to
>>desktop. If the humor takes me, I might start off another character in
>>
>>a few days times with the intent to build him/her into a FPS
>>uber-warrior and blast my way through the game... or I might not....
>
>And unless you deliberately cripple your character, you still won't
>find any of it challenging. Fun, maybe, but not challenging.
>
>>
>>The joy of FO3 is that the type of in-game character,skills chosen and
>>style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional character
>>linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice being the
>>game's difficulty-level.
>
>Like I said, I'm a CRPG purist.
Ah, yes -- another self-anointed one....
> Sandbox type "RPGs" like the Elder
>Scrolls stuff are mostly an excuse not to have to make an interesting
>plotline or good character interaction.
I see. FO3 contains no interesting story-lines? Or is devoid
interesting/fun/hilarious character-interactions? You have been
playing the just-released FO3 and not some demo from years ago ??
> It's a heck of a lot easier
>to make an engine and then tell people to create their own game than
>it is to craft a masterwork like Planescape: Torment or even a more
>traditional RPG like Baldur's Gate II.
>
>Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
Great, ...then be happy playing the style of CRPG that you like. FO3
is not a "sandbox" game, btw. The quests are scripted, even the
hundred or so mini-quests... Daggerfall, with its random dungeon
generation was a "sandbox" game. Probably less than 5% of the
encounters in FO3 are products of randomly-generated events.
I didn't notice "the Witcher" listed above. Below your dignity? Not
quite meet your standards of CRPG excellence?
You did buy FO3, didn't you ?? Since you put in all those hours into
the game, you must surely have bought it. Buying a game you knew
in advance you would not like was a very generous gesture indeed.
Bethesda should be very pleased by your magnanimity.
Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
John Lewis
>
>-David
CJM
"David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote in message
news:gs9ih4la2uqh6s8su...@4ax.com...
>
> I live but to serve.
>
David, in Morvaks defense, he's been looking forward to the game for a
while, and all along there has been a group who were determined not to like
the game regardless of how it turned out - led by Nostromo, but there were
others too.
Some have changed their tune, others have tried the game but don't
universally like it and others haven't tried the game and just keep spouting
the same old tired rubbish. I think Morvak was (over-)reacting to them.
I didn't take your post in a similar vein, but I don't generally agree with
you. As has been said, it's up to you to decide how you want to play the
role. I picked the 10% XP perk, but wish I hadn't; I'm nowhere neared maxed
out but I may well be later on. I think it is only a matter of time before
custom perks are available so if you have suggestions, make them known and
maybe someone will pick them up.
And I'm a decent FPS player and seasoned RPG player, but I'm certainly not
loaded with either money or supplies. Actually, I have enough chems that I
can get addicted to everything several times over, but my
stimpaks/blood/pure water don't last long. But I have found times where I
have too little money or ammo for my liking... certainly earlier in the
game.
I'm sure if I mini-maxed my stats, harvested and sold every bit of junk I
came across, and played a slightly different style then I might be in a
similar boat, but I'm happy playing the way I am, and I'm finding it
interesting enough and well-paced. I've no idea how far through I am, but I
fear I might have done too many side quests. That said, I have installed a
mod that will allow me to go to level 30 so perhaps I'll be OK.
JAB
One thing you can do is do a proper save, say at each level, and then if
you find you have become to powerful go back to an early save. This
means you can carry on doing side quests without having an over powerful
character. That's the beauty of have quests that aren't dependent on
each other. The only thing it doesn't allow for it changing the
direction of the character except at lower levels.
... and yep like all RPGs if you concentrate on making the most powerful
character possible, basically playing the numbers game, then the game
won't be "fun". As you say much better to play the game as it was intended.
CJM
"Greg Johnson" <greg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ob8ih4dno1bvupapr...@4ax.com...
>
> I have to agree with this. If you have to make near-perfect decisions
> all the time or fail, there's not much room left for roleplaying.
> However, I'm certain that the mods for people who want a much harder
> experience will arrive sooner or later, I'm just not one of the target
> audience for that kind of thing.
Lets see... I accepted the quest from Crowley, I killed Tenpenny and Dukov
(?), then I talked to Crowley and we came to blows - obviously, he lost.
I negotiated with Ted Whats-his-name and Dave so I now have their keys.
So now my quest says I can tell Tenpenny that Crowley is dead or I can take
the keys back to Crowley. Ho hum...
As I have said in a previous thread, I like the fact that the game will
allow me to play this quest my own way (read: completely screw it up). In
many other CRPGs, they wouldn't let you kill Crowley AND Tenpenny. Next time
I may negotiate with Tenpenny or complete the quest for Crowley, or I might
skip it entirely or even repeat what I am going to do now which is go to
Fort Constantine on my recognizance.
CJM
"JAB" <noch...@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:YJdSk.49156$yK5....@newsfe24.ams2...
>
> One thing you can do is do a proper save, say at each level, and then if
> you find you have become to powerful go back to an early save. This means
> you can carry on doing side quests without having an over powerful
> character. That's the beauty of have quests that aren't dependent on each
> other. The only thing it doesn't allow for it changing the direction of
> the character except at lower levels.
>
I think I'll start to concentrate on the main quest while there is lots of
stuff that I haven't yet done. Gives me something to look forward to for the
next play-through.
Minler
"Gregory E. Garland" <ge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XPOdnUddv403pITU...@earthlink.com...
It would increase the busy-work of playing by adding options to lists which
no player will ever take except out of ignorance or an unwillingness to
scroll through all the options. Requiring players to find the few
non-gimped options from among 15000 gimped options would be bad game design.
> The history of rpg's is that you design the role-playing
> system, and then let games be built that utilize that particular
> role-playing system.
The history of RPGs is that the game designers work to present meaningful
choices which are not obviously "better" or "worse" than one another, merely
different in their effects on the player, and different in the tactical and
strategic options which are then appropriate to that player.
> There is a legacy situation that tends to make game designers
> include features of older systems which may be utterly useless in the
> particular game they are working on, but the history is that the role-
> playing system is independent of the game. A very good game when
> matched to a particular role-playing system should present the player
> with difficult choices.
Choices between +1 skill and +2 skill are not difficult or interesting.
It's absurd to think that Bethesday was somehow handcuffed into including
useless perks by the legacy gaming system of FO.
Minler
> "David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:hsuhh450nfkvj6j5g...@4ax.com...
>
>> I am arguing that a wider variety of perks should be useful and
>> interesting.
>
> Perks is perks.
You do have a talent for packing a ton of stupidity into very short
sentences.
>> There are too many useless perks. I'm not arguing for fewer perks,
>> I'm arguing for more non-useless ones.
>>
>
> Then your argument is incoherent. The fundamental aspect of an rpg
> is that you must chose how your character develops his/her skills; the
> abstract elements of a particular rpg system are independant of any
> particular game they may be used in, despite whatever historical
> association they may have. The mere fact that you can choose
> wrongly in the context of a particular game is not a defect; it is
> a feature.
Well then, all RPGs could be made better by simply adding choices
willy-nilly. The game designers don't need to bother balancing those
choices, since after all, more choices is better regardless.
Minler
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.2382e545e...@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <sibhh4pfl7pfm2mtg...@4ax.com>,
> david...@att.net says...
>> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
>> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
>> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
>> under the bridge.
>
>
>
>> The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
>> and isn't quite.
>>
>> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>>
>> 1) The game is trivially easy.
>
> developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
> skills.
You appear to miss the connection between challenge and meaningful choices.
Without the former there is no latter. And the latter is what games are
built on.
Minler
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>>> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>>>
>>> 1) The game is trivially easy.
>>
>>It could be argued that CRPGs *should* be easy... In other words, that
>>developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
>>skills.
>>
>
> character interaction is superbly developed. A sandoxy game like FO3
> doesn't have those things to lean on. A CRPG without much challenge,
> without a lot of in depth character interaction, and without a long
> involved storyline is not a CRPG, it's a glorified slideshow where you
> wander around and look at the pretty pictures.
>
> You want to make another game like Torment and I won't care if the
> combat is easy as pie. If, on the other hand, you want a game like
> FO3 to be great and you need to make it a lot more difficult.
To Gerry, all RPGs aspire to be Planescape. All judgements of RPGs are thus
from the perspective of how much like Planescape they are. Whether something
is a flaw is dictated by whether it would have been a flaw in Planescape.
EMan
> "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2382e545e...@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
>
>
>
> > davidbi...@att.net says...
> >> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
> >> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
> >> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
> >> under the bridge.
>
> > One word: "2008"
>
> >> The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
> >> and isn't quite.
>
> >> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>
> >> 1) The game is trivially easy.
>
> > It could be argued that CRPGs *should* be easy... In other words, that
> > developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
> > skills.
>
> You appear to miss the connection between challenge and meaningful choices.
> Without the former there is no latter. And the latter is what games are
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent point. I can't think of a RPG that was actually "hard".
That's where the role playing comes in. You're supposed to make
choices to act out the character that you would have fun playing. If
you don't like running around blowing people heads off, why did you
put so many points in small firearms? Like in real life, you don't
get married if you like screwing a different woman every night.
You're just in for a miserable experience.
WDS
> Reading comprehension is difficult. How many times in my post did I
> say that FO3 is a good game?
Once. Then you went into detail on how trivially easy it was.
Morgan
> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
> under the bridge.
I don't really have a problem with it being first person. I think a lot of
the reason the RPGs of old were third person was more to do with the
graphical limitations of the day. As for turn based. Yes I enjoyed the
turn based combat of the FO1 & 2, but I also enjoy the real-time/VATS in
FO3.
> The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
> and isn't quite.
>
> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>
> 1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
> difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
> there is no actual challenge.
I'd actuly disagree 100% on this point, I found a lot of the combat
challenging and I'm used to FPSs as well as RPGs. I suppose it could be
down to the play style though. I channeled a lot of learning points into
lock picking, stealth, speech etc as well as small guns. I'm approaching
the end of the game now. lvl 19 and it's getting a lot easier than it was,
however I think this is the nature of RPGs, a lot of them get a lot easier
when you become very high level.
> After a certain point you don't even
> need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
> out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
> and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
> guess).
>
> You can rest pretty much at any time to heal up all the way.
That's typical RPG though.
>
> 2) The levelling up process and perks, a great strength of earlier
> Fallouts, is stupid and unbalanced. Many perks are useless and
> counterproductive. Why would you take "Daddy's Boy" for +5 science,
> +5 medicine (10 skill points) when you can take Intense Training, put
> a point into intelligence, and get a lot more than 10 skill points? Or
> the Educated perk where you get 3 extra skill points per level? I had
> like a 9 intelligence + Educated perk and I ended up with so many
> skill points that I was putting them into crap I didn't need because
> everything I did use was maxxed out well before level 20.
Although I like a lot of the perks I do agree that a lot are unbalanced.
Personally I'd have preferred to have been given less of them as you got in
the first two games.
> And stuff like "Lady Killer" is an underused mess. Yeah, you get 10%
> damage bonus to female opponents. Whoopee. The real draw is supposed
> to be the extra dialogue options. Except there aren't any.
Yep, I took that perk, I've used it once so far. A bit daft.
All in all for me. FO3 has it's shortcomings. But so does every other game
ever made. It has great dialogue and atmosphere, It's certainly one of the
best games I've played in a long time, and in my book it is a great game.
Mark Morrison
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>Mark Morrison <bl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:12:37 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>1) The game is trivially easy. Maybe they didn't want to make it
>>>difficult to scare away console kiddies but even on hard+ difficulty
>>>there is no actual challenge. After a certain point you don't even
>>>need any tactics. No reason to sneak for those criticals, just pull
>>>out your combat shotgun and walk at the enemy until you are in range
>>>and blow his or her head off. (Unless they have a laser minigun, I
>>>guess).
>>
>>I must be a crap fighter, then, becasue I've had a few times in my
>>second playthough where I've been very low on stimpacks, and health,
>>forcing me to sneak to safety, so I can go rest up and resupply.
>>
>>I'm only playing on Normal, too.
>
>Weird. I don't think I'm particularly awesome and I had hundreds of
>stimpacks by the end. I never really take much damage from enemy
>fire; the few times I had trouble was because I forgot that cars
>EXPLODE and unwisely took cover behind them.
>
>What's your character like? I maxxed out small guns very quickly, had
>high agility, and depending on range mostly just blew off the enemy
>heads with a sniper rifle or combat shotgun in VATS.
>
My first play through was fairly easy - my second is a lot tougher as
I'm exploring a lot, so wander into guys where I need to use meds to
get through the fight.
First time I followed the main quest, mostly, so almost all the fights
were level appropriate, so no major problems.
I tihnk that's the main difference - Iit's possible that Willow just
isn't as tough as Buffy, my first character :D
Mark Morrison
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>
>Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
You should email the hundreds of people who spent years making Fallout
3 - I'm sure they'd appreciate your insight into how they're so
lazy...
Gerry Quinn
david...@att.net says...
> >
> >developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
> >skills.
> >
> character interaction is superbly developed. A sandoxy game like FO3
> doesn't have those things to lean on. A CRPG without much challenge,
> without a lot of in depth character interaction, and without a long
> involved storyline is not a CRPG, it's a glorified slideshow where you
> wander around and look at the pretty pictures.
It is a matter of degree. I haven't played FO3 yet, but when you say it
is "easy" do you save and reload frequently? Do you select optimised
skills and attributes to make it as easy as possible? Not all players
wish to do such things.
As for the perks, I get the impression you have a free choice at each
level? It seems to me that the best solution would be to offer you a
choice of about three alternatives based on your actions, or (more
simply) offer you a choice between three random perks. This would
reduce the possibility of min-maxing.
> You want to make another game like Torment and I won't care if the
> combat is easy as pie. If, on the other hand, you want a game like
> FO3 to be great and you need to make it a lot more difficult.
FO3 sounds fine to me, I can enjoy an FPS but that's not what i am
looking for in this game.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
I don't understand where you get that idea from. Planescape was a good
game but spoiled by the broken Infinity Engine which in fact made combat
very difficult unless you engaged in the half-baked stop-start action
required by it.
I'd like to see a successor but by no means do I judge other games by
its standards; it was somewhat sui generis.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, supreme.ev...@gmail.com says...
> On Nov 11, 11:33 am, "Minler" <apqow...@ghfjdksl.com> wrote:
> > "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.2382e545e...@news.indigo.ie...
> > > In article <sibhh4pfl7pfm2mtgrrmpbuchr4o6ka...@4ax.com>,
> > > davidbi...@att.net says...
> > >> 1) The game is trivially easy.
> >
> > > It could be argued that CRPGs *should* be easy... In other words, that
> > > developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
> > > skills.
> >
> > You appear to miss the connection between challenge and meaningful choices.
> > Without the former there is no latter. And the latter is what games are
> > built on.
Another post in which I am unclear as to whether you are replying to me
or David Bilek, as it seems to have little to do with what I said.
> Excellent point. I can't think of a RPG that was actually "hard".
> That's where the role playing comes in. You're supposed to make
> choices to act out the character that you would have fun playing. If
> you don't like running around blowing people heads off, why did you
> put so many points in small firearms?
Yes, the game should be winnable with alternative choices; that is
somewhat the point of CRPs.
> Like in real life, you don't
> get married if you like screwing a different woman every night.
> You're just in for a miserable experience.
Unless you're French.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
david...@att.net says...
> john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> >
> >You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
> Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
> doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
I begin to see the problem.
CRPGs have moved on since those days. At the time the technology
allowed for little more than a series of difficult combat or mapping
puzzles. Now it can support something closer to the ideal of allowing a
character to choose his destiny in a fantasy world. Those old-school
CRPGs are obsolete now.
> Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
Maybe you should find other games to play so.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
says...
> I didn't take your post in a similar vein, but I don't generally agree with
> you. As has been said, it's up to you to decide how you want to play the
> role. I picked the 10% XP perk, but wish I hadn't; I'm nowhere neared maxed
> out but I may well be later on.
It's probably not at all bad if having an extra level stops you dying or
failing quests in the early game, even if it obviously becomes useless
when you would have reached max level without it.
- Gerry Quinn
Gregory E. Garland
news:gfca23$as5$1...@aioe.org...
>
> "Gregory E. Garland" <ge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:XPOdnUddv403pITU...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> If you added 15 perks that no one would choose to use how does that
>> affect the play of this particular game? If you added 15,000 perks
>> that no one would chose how would that affect the play of this
>> particular game?
>
> It would increase the busy-work of playing by adding options to lists
> which no player will ever take except out of ignorance or an unwillingness
> to scroll through all the options. Requiring players to find the few
> non-gimped options from among 15000 gimped options would be bad game
> design.
>
Not that bright either, eh? It _might_ be bad role-playing system design; it
is ultimately irrelevant to the game itself. Here's your final clues: (1)
Bethesda
obviously had the power to tweak the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system any way they
wanted, but you don't have to be a marketing genius to understand that
alienating the huge fallout fan base by deviating too much from the original
is a stupid idea. (2) No successful design team is going to look at their
final product and say "Golly, we didn't make much use of that particular
aspect of the role-playing system, did we? Let's spend a few man-months
of effort to rip out any references to it and re-test everything".
David T. Bilek
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:41:29 -0800, David T. Bilek
><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>>
>>
>>I completed every quest in the game.
>
>What amazing stamina... but how do you know?
Because I checked fallout.wikia.com after I finished to make sure
there wasn't anything major I missed. Yeah, I didn't find every
single location but I completed all of the quests listed.
>Played the game with one
>hand and with a complete game guide in the other ?? You are aware
>that many of the quests do branch quite differently, subject to
>various conditions......(no spoilers..). Nice to know that you played
>through the complete game with several different character types. Such
>a dedicated soul....
If I found it unchallenging with the first character I played through
and feel like I've gotten everything out of the game I'm going to get,
why in hell would I start over with a different character? I'd be
bored out of my skull.
>
>>The problem is not that there
>>isn't enough to do, the problem is that none of it is challenging. You
>>can play for hours and hours and never find anything difficult.
>>
>
>Really, you must be a truly brilliant player not to get killed a few
>times during the game,
I believe I got killed 3 times, all because I took cover behind a car,
forgetting that they explode when the enemy fires into them.
>and never have to replay a quest because you
>screwed up... Or maybe you mean something totally different
>by your statement "never find anything difficult" ?
I never had to replay any quests because I screwed up, no. I
generally accept the consequences of my actions. But it's not like
the quests were that hard.
By "never find anything difficult", I mean there is never a point at
which I was unsure if I could survive or complete my objectives. It
was quite clear through the entire game that the only way I could die
was if I screwed the pooch badly (like hiding behind the
aforementioned exploding cars). And there were no puzzles or anything
that I had to solve.
Oh, and the mini-games like lockpicking and hacking were so trivial it
was ridiculous. If you're going to have a minigame, make it take some
skill or something. I never failed a single hacking attempt through
the entire game, and I hacked every terminal I could find.
>
> I didn't notice "the Witcher" listed above. Below your dignity? Not
>quite meet your standards of CRPG excellence?
I thought The Witcher Enhanced Edition was very good, actually. There
were some flaws, sure, but overall it was quite good.
It was also very easy, but not nearly to the extent that FO3 was.
I never played the non-enhanced Witcher. My understanding is that the
enhanced version is WAY better.
>
>You did buy FO3, didn't you ?? Since you put in all those hours into
>the game, you must surely have bought it. Buying a game you knew
>in advance you would not like was a very generous gesture indeed.
>Bethesda should be very pleased by your magnanimity.
>
>Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
>fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
>
I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here.
-David
David T. Bilek
>
>And I'm a decent FPS player and seasoned RPG player, but I'm certainly not
>loaded with either money or supplies. Actually, I have enough chems that I
>can get addicted to everything several times over, but my
>stimpaks/blood/pure water don't last long. But I have found times where I
>have too little money or ammo for my liking... certainly earlier in the
>game.
One thing I hadn't realized: you get more XP on the harder difficulty
levels. I'm guessing that because I was playing on the harder
difficulties that I out-leveled the opponents very early. I don't
think giving extra XP was a good idea at all; it defeats the purpose
of cranking the difficulty.
My working theory is that HARD difficulty is actually no harder and
possibly easier for much of the game as you'll be higher level than on
a lower difficulty, and the extra hit points of the enemy doesn't make
up for the perks and skills you get from extra levels.
-David
David T. Bilek
>In article <qu9ih4li81u7da7ge...@4ax.com>,
>david...@att.net says...
>> john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>> >
>> >You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>>
>> Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
>> doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
>
>I begin to see the problem.
>
>CRPGs have moved on since those days. At the time the technology
>allowed for little more than a series of difficult combat or mapping
>puzzles. Now it can support something closer to the ideal of allowing a
>character to choose his destiny in a fantasy world. Those old-school
>CRPGs are obsolete now.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(takes breath)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-David
David T. Bilek
Wait, we are supposed to withhold criticisms if a lot of people put a
lot of time into something? I suppose Tycho and Gabe (from Penny
Arcade) shouldn't be talking about how lazy and crappy the writing in
Gears of War 2 is? After all, even more people likely worked on Gears
2.
This is similar.
-David
David T. Bilek
Actually I just checked; I said it was a good game at least three
times. Once at the beginning, once in the middle, and once near the
end.
If a game sucks there is little point in analyzing exactly where it
went wrong. It's probably a muddled mess. But when a game is good
and could have been great, looking at the flaws is useful. Me
pointing out where I think FO3 fails shouldn't be such a huge issue.
You might disagree but it's not like I kicked your dog or something.
In any case, I'm becoming more convinced that playing on the hard
difficulty levels was counterproductive and that it actually makes the
game easier in some ways.
-David
Morgan
> john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>
>> You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
> Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
> problem with FO3 is that it is neither an excellent RPG nor a very
> good FPS. It's a mishmash of both.
Which is your opinion. Other's may differ.
>> The joy of FO3 is that the type of in-game character,skills chosen
>> and style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional
>> character linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice
>> being the game's difficulty-level.
>
> Like I said, I'm a CRPG purist.
Then you'd know that there isn't actually set of criteria that a game has to
meet to be a RPG, pure or otherwise. Oblivion is as much an RPG as PS:T is.
Now personally I prefer PS:T for it's story and atmosphere but that just
means that it' more suited to my personal taste.
> Sandbox type "RPGs" like the Elder
> Scrolls stuff are mostly an excuse not to have to make an interesting
> plotline or good character interaction. It's a heck of a lot easier
> to make an engine and then tell people to create their own game than
> it is to craft a masterwork like Planescape: Torment or even a more
> traditional RPG like Baldur's Gate II.
And you're qualifications in computer gaming software design are?
> Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
Sandbox games basically give you a lot of freedom in a world. This does not
negate the option to include a good story also taking part in that world.
You know, sort of like they did with a couple of post apocalyptic RPGs back
in the 90s. Okay FO3 might be a little more sandbox than 1 & 2 but most
good RPG have an strong element of sandbox about them. Letting the player
make the choice of where to go and what to do next, you know, playing a
role.
John Lewis
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:22:28 GMT, john...@verizon.net (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You did buy FO3, didn't you ?? Since you put in all those hours into
>>the game, you must surely have bought it. Buying a game you knew
>>in advance you would not like was a very generous gesture indeed.
>>Bethesda should be very pleased by your magnanimity.
>>
Er, you did not answer the question in the above paragraph......
Answer??
>>Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
>>fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
>>
>
>I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here.
(No need to use totally unnecessary rude words in a civil discussion.
Kinda lowers others' impressions of the poster....)
You don't know Nostromo? Very strange, you claim to be an expert
on CRPGs virtually since the beginning and you have never got to know
Nostromo on this newsgroup.... If you did, you would know immediately
the meaning of my Nostromo reference... You must be a rank newbie to
this newsgroup. This usenet newsgroup has been in existence ever since
the earliest CRPGs, long before Internet forums were ever
born..........
John Lewis
>
>-David
John Lewis
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:22:28 GMT, john...@verizon.net (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:41:29 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>I completed every quest in the game.
>>
>>What amazing stamina... but how do you know?
>
>Because I checked fallout.wikia.com after I finished to make sure
>there wasn't anything major I missed. Yeah, I didn't find every
>single location but I completed all of the quests listed.
>
>>Played the game with one
>>hand and with a complete game guide in the other ?? You are aware
>>that many of the quests do branch quite differently, subject to
>>various conditions......(no spoilers..). Nice to know that you played
>>through the complete game with several different character types. Such
>>a dedicated soul....
>
>If I found it unchallenging with the first character I played through
>and feel like I've gotten everything out of the game I'm going to get,
>why in hell would I start over with a different character? I'd be
>bored out of my skull.
>
Primary skills chosen??
If primarily FPS oriented, sure you can blast your way through and
complete the quests in double-quick time. You take just one set of the
available quest-paths and you skip over a whole bunch of interesting
story-line. Quite a few CRPG players are like me and love to take
their time adventure-exploring, soaking up the lore and the
story-lines, not in finishing the game as quickly as possible, with a
bunch of saccompanying chest-beating. Not picking the uber-FPS
skills, and instead, say, concentrating on quickly building up speech
and sneak skills makes for a totally different game-experience,
including different paths and internediate objectives in the quests.
FO3 is a true RPG in that it allows the player a vastly wide latitude
in choosing play-styles. For each play-style the player's
game-experiences can be quite widely different, thanks to some very
clever alternate-path dependencies built into the quests.
BTW, I note you also mentioned that the mini-game was trivial for you.
I have not yet failed in the mini-game either, but always I get a real
kick out of seeing whether I can solve it in the "minimum number of
moves" and certainly before the first set of chances has been used up.
I am one of those who really loved to play Mastermind. Must pull out
my Mastermind set and play it again with a friend or two this
Christmas.
In spite of all your objections, you say in your postings that you
"liked" FO3. So what did you like about it? Please list the features
that you really liked. You are obviously a very talented person with
lots of great RPG ideas. I expect to see you in the forefront of the
FO3 mod community when the editor is released, helping to eliminate
the game's glaring deficiencies.... Used any of the Bethsoft mod.
tools? If not I suggest getting a little prior practice with a mod or
two for Oblivion to get up to speed.
John Lewis
Wolfing
> In article <qu9ih4li81u7da7geu7c0b947l7a5b1...@4ax.com>,
> davidbi...@att.net says...
>
> > john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>
> > >You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
> > Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
> > doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
>
> I begin to see the problem.
>
> CRPGs have moved on since those days. At the time the technology
> allowed for little more than a series of difficult combat or mapping
> puzzles. Now it can support something closer to the ideal of allowing a
> character to choose his destiny in a fantasy world. Those old-school
> CRPGs are obsolete now.
>
with the fact that RPGs nowadays have moved away from the 'cerebral'
puzzles to the 'action' puzzles. Less and less you see RPGs in which
you need to figure out how to do something, in which you have to
manage your party's health and resources. Now you just need to shoot/
swing/block really fast or timely and just stand in a spot for 5
seconds or teleport to a bed to be full health again. Party based
games are all but gone, though I see a small comeback coming with
Dragon Age and Drakensang.
You almost don't see games with different spell/abilities that work
better or worse against certain mobs. No buffs, no tactical decisions
like positioning, etc. Nowadays games are just about how 'cool' they
look. A firebolt has an amazing graphic, but it doesn't do more or
less damage against anything. It's pretty much an arrow with a
different graphic.
I do not believe 'those old-school CRPGs' are obsolete now. They will
probably not sell as much as a Diablo 3, but the type of people that
used to like them are still there. If they don't spend $10 million to
make them, they should still make a profit.
> > Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
I don't know if they're lazy, but I don't like them that much either
Morgan
> Thanks for the non-fanboy review David.
As you've already had explained to you Nos: Negative about the game !=
non-fanboy & Positive about the game != fanyboy. (I'd also point out that
David's post wasn't a review) It is possible to give a positive review and
still be objective. There have been plenty of positive yet balanced
thoughts on the game, however you've only felt the need to "thank" two
people that I've seen, both gave overly critical points of view. The odd
thing is that Justisaur came back a few days later and withdraw a lot of his
original thoughts, yet you didn't thank him for the update. And before
anyone comes back saying that David said he liked the game, yes he did.
However he then gave what is in my opinion some very unblaenced thoughs on
the game. His comments about the perks are fair enough. However his
comments about the difficulty are flat wrong in my book. I've been playing
games a long time now. FPSs included and it's not that easy. I can only
conclude that he focused all of his character development into combat which
yes, would make combat very easy, however it would make every other aspect
of the game hard. He didn't mention any other aspect which in my book leads
to an unbalanced viewpoint about a game.
> So, it's like Oblivion with guns + some extra shit they
No, it;s nothing like that, as *many* people have already said and taken the
trouble to explain in here
> couldn't make
> up, so they stole/bought it, butchered it & spread it around far too
> thin to hold water? Gotcha. As I said from the start, these yahoos at
> Beth have NFI how to make a real *roleplaying* game, just wet sandpits
> where the emperors with no clothes get to play around with themselves.
Nos, as you've been told. The vast majority of people in here will make up
their own minds. A cursory glace over the FO3 threads shows that people have
an open mind and have made up their own minds based on their first hand
experience of the game (no emperors new clothes situation), These people
have *bothered* to form an opinion based on their *own* experience. This is
something you need to learn to do.
But well done, you FO3 negatives are up to at least 3 now, proof, if any be
needed that all us other people who are enjoying the game are, delusional,
stupid, or just plain lying. :-)
David T. Bilek
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:55:41 -0800, David T. Bilek
><david...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:22:28 GMT, john...@verizon.net (John Lewis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>You did buy FO3, didn't you ?? Since you put in all those hours into
>>>the game, you must surely have bought it. Buying a game you knew
>>>in advance you would not like was a very generous gesture indeed.
>>>Bethesda should be very pleased by your magnanimity.
>>>
>
>Er, you did not answer the question in the above paragraph......
>
Why should I answer a question like that? It's rather rude.
>>>Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
>>>fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
>>>
>>
>>I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here.
>
>(No need to use totally unnecessary rude words in a civil discussion.
>Kinda lowers others' impressions of the poster....)
>
As opposed to your implication that I pirated FO3, which is quite
civil.
>You don't know Nostromo? Very strange, you claim to be an expert
>on CRPGs virtually since the beginning and you have never got to know
>Nostromo on this newsgroup.... If you did, you would know immediately
>the meaning of my Nostromo reference... You must be a rank newbie to
>this newsgroup. This usenet newsgroup has been in existence ever since
>the earliest CRPGs, long before Internet forums were ever
>born..........
>
I haven't been readnig CSIPRPG much for the last seven or eight years.
I read it all the time in the mid 90s, though.
-David
David T. Bilek
>>If I found it unchallenging with the first character I played through
>>and feel like I've gotten everything out of the game I'm going to get,
>>why in hell would I start over with a different character? I'd be
>>bored out of my skull.
>>
>
>Primary skills chosen??
I picked small guns, science, and speech. By the end of the game I
had maxxed out (100) small guns, energy weapons, science, speech, and
repair and had about 60 in lockpicking, sneak, and medicine.
>
> If primarily FPS oriented, sure you can blast your way through and
>complete the quests in double-quick time. You take just one set of the
>available quest-paths and you skip over a whole bunch of interesting
>story-line. Quite a few CRPG players are like me and love to take
>their time adventure-exploring, soaking up the lore and the
>story-lines, not in finishing the game as quickly as possible, with a
>bunch of saccompanying chest-beating. Not picking the uber-FPS
>skills, and instead, say, concentrating on quickly building up speech
>and sneak skills makes for a totally different game-experience,
Speech was one of my tag skills. I also took the perk Lady Killer for
the extra dialogue options. I *like* more dialogue, not less. Of
course it turned out that Lady Killer did bupkus.
>
>BTW, I note you also mentioned that the mini-game was trivial for you.
>I have not yet failed in the mini-game either, but always I get a real
>kick out of seeing whether I can solve it in the "minimum number of
>moves" and certainly before the first set of chances has been used up.
You should be able to solve almost all the hacking terminals in three
guesses. Four guesses requires some bad luck or a mistake.
>I am one of those who really loved to play Mastermind. Must pull out
>my Mastermind set and play it again with a friend or two this
>Christmas.
>
Me too; that's why it was so easy. It's impossible to fail unless
you make an obvious mistake.
>In spite of all your objections, you say in your postings that you
>"liked" FO3. So what did you like about it? Please list the features
>that you really liked.
The engine itself is very good. I was surprised at how well the
Oblivion-esque feel translated to combat with guns. I do feel that
they cheated by making the range of stuff like sniper rifles not all
THAT much longer than, say, a shotgun and would encourage modders to
increase the effective range of rifles by quite a bit. But VATS +
guns worked a lot better than I expected and tying your % chance to
hit in VATS more strongly to your skill with the weapon combined with
pushing the effective range of rifles out another 50% or so would make
it perfect. This is probably easily moddable.
Some of the quests were quite good and at least one even sucker
punches you. I thought I was doing the right thing in Tenpenny Tower
by convincing everyone to let the ghouls live with them. Except that
later it turns out that the ghouls promptly slaughtered all the humans
and took over.... just like the "bigot" humans said they would. So by
trying to be a do-gooder I managed to get a lot of innocent people
murdered by zombies. That smarted and I came very close to going on a
ghoul-slaughtering spree afterwards despite being about as good-karma
as you could get. I still wonder if there is some way to get the
humans and ghouls to co-exist without a massacre. Maybe killing the
evil head ghoul before allowing the other ghouls to move in? Dunno.
I'm not going to replay the whole game to find out, though.
The beginning and early mid-game is extremely fun. It only becomes
tedious oncel you gain enough levels that you significantly outclass
everything you encounter. This is why I think playing on the harder
difficulty might be counter-productive. Since it makes you level
faster, you spend less of the game at a low enough level that you
can't obliterate everything you encounter without much problem. Maybe
I should have played on normal difficulty.
I'm still a huge fan of the SPECIAL and perk system. FO3 did make a
mistake in allowing you to pick a perk every level, I think, but
that's a design decision without a clear right answer. And the perk
system appears more flexible than it really is once you realize that
there are very, very, very few "extra dialogue options" for things
like Lady Killer or Child at Heart.
Basically I think the game is very immersive and just wandering around
the wasteland at the beginning to see whats over the next hill is
actually a lot of fun. But to me it is only fun when what's over the
next hill stands the chance of being dangerous enough to kill me.
Otherwise there is no tension, no challenge, and no sense of danger.
Why sneak around scouting and going for sneak criticals when anything
I run into can barely scratch me before I combat shotgun its head off?
Yeah, it's fun for a while even once it becomes unnecessary but
eventually the novelty wears off and it requires an actual challenge
to make it fun.
In other words; I think Fallout 3 is very excellent while the novelty
persists. Once the novelty wears off it needs to present more of a
challenge to a wide range of players. You're arguing that all player
types should be able to have fun. I'll agree with that. The game
should not be a huge challenge on normal difficulty. I'm not arguing
it should be.
I am arguing it should be a huge challenge on very hard difficulty,
and it isn't. If that's true, you should agree with me that it's a
problem based on your philosophy that all player types should be able
to have fun. There is no point in putting in a hard difficulty that
isn't hard. Again, I'm not saying that the game should be an
impossible bloodbath on normal difficulty. I'm saying it should be an
extremely challenging bloodbath on VERY HARD difficulty. Not having
it be so is a failure to appeal to as wide a player base as possible.
-David
Mark Morrison
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>Mark Morrison <bl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:41:29 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
>>
>>You should email the hundreds of people who spent years making Fallout
>>3 - I'm sure they'd appreciate your insight into how they're so
>>lazy...
>
>Wait, we are supposed to withhold criticisms if a lot of people put a
>lot of time into something? I suppose Tycho and Gabe (from Penny
>Arcade) shouldn't be talking about how lazy and crappy the writing in
>Gears of War 2 is? After all, even more people likely worked on Gears
>2.
>
>This is similar.
>
>-David
My point is that just because you don't (appear, at least) to like
sandbox games, doesn't make them lazy. From whay I've seen in the
past, and I've played a few, it's incredibly difficult to do one well
- it's so easy to break quests, do things out of order, etc.
Maybe in future you should stick with more tightly scripted CRPGs.
David T. Bilek
>
>Maybe in future you should stick with more tightly scripted CRPGs.
Love to. I don't forsee enough of them in my future to occupy my game
playing time.
-David
John Lewis
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:55:41 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:22:28 GMT, john...@verizon.net (John Lewis)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>You did buy FO3, didn't you ?? Since you put in all those hours into
>>>>the game, you must surely have bought it. Buying a game you knew
>>>>in advance you would not like was a very generous gesture indeed.
>>>>Bethesda should be very pleased by your magnanimity.
>>>>
>>
>>Er, you did not answer the question in the above paragraph......
>>
>
>Why should I answer a question like that? It's rather rude.
Rude? If somebody answered that question of me, I would answer yes or
no, unless I was explaining whether I was commenting on a game demo
instead of the full game...
>
>>>>Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
>>>>fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here.
>>
>>(No need to use totally unnecessary rude words in a civil discussion.
>>Kinda lowers others' impressions of the poster....)
>>
>
>As opposed to your implication that I pirated FO3, which is quite
>civil.
No implication, just the obvious alternate question without explicitly
stating the obvious..
So did you buy the game or did you not?
The answer is one word and not even a four-letter one.....
John Lewis
David T. Bilek
Bullshit, it's an attempt to delegitimize my opinion of FO3 based on
innuendo. And, like the candidate in the movie THE CONTENDER which I
just watched, I'm not going to answer a ridiculous question that never
should have been asked in the first place.
-David
John Lewis
Ummmm, in my direct experience, the sniper rifle range is FAR longer
than the shotgun, certainly at the higher levels of small gun skills.
> and would encourage modders to
>increase the effective range of rifles by quite a bit. But VATS +
>guns worked a lot better than I expected and tying your % chance to
>hit in VATS more strongly to your skill with the weapon combined with
>pushing the effective range of rifles out another 50% or so would make
>it perfect. This is probably easily moddable.
>
The PC version of the game has quite a few very obvious bugs not
addressed by the 1.0.0.15 patch. So FO3 will be patched again, maybe
several times.. The FO3 designers are no doubt listening in on all the
discussion forums including this one and may also do some
balance/difficulty tweaking specifically for the PC version where the
greatest majority of dedicated/discerning CRPG players still hang out.
Once the Editing Tools are available, expect a huge rush of mods on
the PC version, some no doubt addressing the bulk of your concerns.
Thanks so much for your excellent analysis and the time that you have
taken working on it before posting here. Please consider actively
participating in the FO3 mod community once the editor is released.
Yes, I do agree that steeply increasing the difficulty at the hard
setting for all player-actions, including lock-picking and the
mini-game,, would be a boon, especially when playing the game
2nd or 3rd time round. It would be nice also to have, say, a random
selection of 3 or 4 different types of mini-game for the "unlock
terminals". FO3 is one-dimensional like Bioshock in this specific
respect. By the time Bioshock ended, I had got very tired of the
jig-saw fitting....
John Lewis
>-David
John Lewis
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:57:45 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As opposed to your implication that I pirated FO3, which is quite
>>>civil.
>>
>>No implication, just the obvious alternate question without explicitly
>>stating the obvious..
>>
>>So did you buy the game or did you not?
>>
>>The answer is one word and not even a four-letter one.....
>>
>
>Bullshit, it's an attempt to delegitimize my opinion of FO3 based on
>innuendo.
Not at all...... See my reply to your other slightly later posting
where you gave a deeply-considered opinion in reply to some questions
of mine. You may feel a lot happier.
However, I do have VERY strong opinions with regard to purchasers (or
officially-sanctioned reviewers) only truly having the right to
critique PC games, unless they are commenting on a publicly-released
demo. I detest piracy and the resultant DRM foisted on the legitimate
paying customers of PC games by publishers trying to protect their
sales and the developer's royalties.
John Lewis
Minler
> "Minler" <apqo...@ghfjdksl.com> wrote in message
> news:gfca23$as5$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Gregory E. Garland" <ge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:XPOdnUddv403pITU...@earthlink.com...
>>> You have merely proven that you haven't understood the argument.
>>>
>>> If you added 15 perks that no one would choose to use how does that
>>> affect the play of this particular game? If you added 15,000 perks
>>> that no one would chose how would that affect the play of this
>>> particular game?
>>
>> It would increase the busy-work of playing by adding options to lists
>> which no player will ever take except out of ignorance or an
>> unwillingness to scroll through all the options. Requiring players to
>> find the few non-gimped options from among 15000 gimped options would be
>> bad game design.
>>
>
> Not that bright either, eh? It _might_ be bad role-playing system design;
> it
> is ultimately irrelevant to the game itself.
Your revolving and arbitrary definition of "the game itself", which somehow
separates the playing experience from "the game itself", is pretty
convenient for your style of amorophous pointess argument, but it marks you
as a fool who tries to sound a lot smarter than he actually is.
> Here's your final clues: (1) Bethesda
> obviously had the power to tweak the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system any way they
> wanted, but you don't have to be a marketing genius to understand that
> alienating the huge fallout fan base by deviating too much from the
> original
> is a stupid idea. (2) No successful design team is going to look at their
> final product and say "Golly, we didn't make much use of that particular
> aspect of the role-playing system, did we? Let's spend a few man-months
> of effort to rip out any references to it and re-test everything".
You know literally nothing about game or software design. Now run along and
play, sport, the adults are trying to discuss things here.
Gregory E. Garland
>
[drivel deleted]
yep... too stupid to have bothered with, and I should have known better.
Sorry for wasting the time of anyone who bothered to read this sub-thread.
Nostromo
-0800 (PST), Anno Domini:
>On Nov 11, 11:33 am, "Minler" <apqow...@ghfjdksl.com> wrote:
>> "Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>>
>> news:MPG.2382e545e...@news.indigo.ie...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <sibhh4pfl7pfm2mtgrrmpbuchr4o6ka...@4ax.com>,
>> > davidbi...@att.net says...
>> >> Fallout 3 is a good game. It's not exactly Fallout, and I would have
>> >> preferred a different license so that an actual turn-based
>> >> non-first-person Fallout 3 could have been made, but that's water
>> >> under the bridge.
>>
>> > One word: "2008"
>>
>> >> The problem is that Fallout 3 could have been a truly exceptional game
>> >> and isn't quite.
>>
>> >> There are two primary problems with FO3:
>>
>> >> 1) The game is trivially easy.
>>
>> > It could be argued that CRPGs *should* be easy... In other words, that
>> > developing your own adventure should not depend too much on your gaming
>> > skills.
>>
>> You appear to miss the connection between challenge and meaningful choices.
>> Without the former there is no latter. And the latter is what games are
>> built on.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Excellent point. I can't think of a RPG that was actually "hard".
>That's where the role playing comes in. You're supposed to make
>choices to act out the character that you would have fun playing. If
>you don't like running around blowing people heads off, why did you
>put so many points in small firearms? Like in real life, you don't
>get married if you like screwing a different woman every night.
>You're just in for a miserable experience.
I think you've described Gerry to a tee there rofl! :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>
>
>"David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:gs9ih4la2uqh6s8su...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I live but to serve.
>>
>
>David, in Morvaks defense, he's been looking forward to the game for a
>while, and all along there has been a group who were determined not to like
>the game regardless of how it turned out - led by Nostromo, but there were
>others too.
That's because the real fans knew from the *start* that it would turn out
shit. And it did. No determination from us required - just
self-determination from a game that has nothing to offer us we haven't seen
a dozen times before, in one form or another, no matter which way Bethesda &
the fanbois club here try to sugarcoat it & polish the turd. Because, hey,
it's Bethesda, & their game systems suck major arse & are the _last_
developer we would want designing a worthy sequel to a couple of all-time
classics. Because they were way out of their depth on this one & with all
the massive resources, time & money at their disposal, even with
stealing/buying (same thing in this case) the rights to rape the franchise,
they STILL only produced a mediocre run-n-gun shooter, with some misguided
roleplaying elements.
That's all IMO of course, which I am entitled to, whether I've played the
game or not, whether you agree or not. Live with it, build a bridge, get
over it. QED.
--
Nostromo
Minler
I doubt anybody ever bothers to read anything you write, you're a
pretentious jackass who obviously tries hard to sound a lot smarter than he
actually is. You've probably never had an interesting insight into anything
in your life.
Nostromo
Domini:
>So then Nos you got a copy of the game yet?
>8^D Nope! >8^P
(but I feel like I've suffered through the turd for weeks with all the crap
interplay here :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:22:28 GMT, john...@verizon.net (John Lewis)
>wrote:
>>Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
>>fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
>>
>
>I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say here.
He desperately needs something to believe in. God knows, the devil won't
have him & believing in oneself is such an obvious, dismal daily
disappointment, that he's only got God or FO3 left. And he already believes
he's God, so... :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
He only has one question in his repertoire, when he's not listening to
himself bleat. I just answer YES to all of them now, so he needs someone
else to be his P2P scape goat of higher power! ;)
--
Nostromo
David T. Bilek
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:07:20 -0800, David T. Bilek
><david...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:57:45 -0800, David T. Bilek
>>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As opposed to your implication that I pirated FO3, which is quite
>>>>civil.
>>>
>>>No implication, just the obvious alternate question without explicitly
>>>stating the obvious..
>>>
>>>So did you buy the game or did you not?
>>>
>>>The answer is one word and not even a four-letter one.....
>>>
>>
>>Bullshit, it's an attempt to delegitimize my opinion of FO3 based on
>>innuendo.
>
>Not at all...... See my reply to your other slightly later posting
>where you gave a deeply-considered opinion in reply to some questions
>of mine. You may feel a lot happier.
>
>However, I do have VERY strong opinions w
I just saw it; I appreciated the response.
>With regard to purchasers (or
>officially-sanctioned reviewers) only truly having the right to
>critique PC games, unless they are commenting on a publicly-released
>demo.
That's perfectly fine; the problem was that you seem to assume that I
pirated a game solely on the basis of my critiquing of (primarily)
it's difficulty and to a lesser extent some poor choices in terms of
perks and such. Do you ask everybody how they acquired a game or just
people that aren't posting pure lavish praise?
-David
Minler
>> >
>> >You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>>
>> Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
>> doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
>
> I begin to see the problem.
>
> CRPGs have moved on since those days. At the time the technology
> allowed for little more than a series of difficult combat or mapping
> puzzles. Now it can support something closer to the ideal of allowing a
> character to choose his destiny in a fantasy world. Those old-school
> CRPGs are obsolete now.
Pure escapism into a fantasy story is obsolete for most post-pubescents.
There should be a game there to provide a framework for the fairy tale that
your sort likes so much.
>> Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
>
> Maybe you should find other games to play so.
Or maybe you should. Last I checked, the vast majority of money flowing
into the CRPG market was in MMORPGs where the game system is king and story
is an afterthought.
But reality does not seem to be your strong suit. Maybe you should design a
story based CRPG where you roleplay a game designer that makes a ton of
money on story based CRPGs.
David T. Bilek
wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:16:47 -0800, David T. Bilek
><david...@att.net> wrote:
>> blah blah blah
major snippage
>
>
>Thanks so much for your excellent analysis and the time that you have
>taken working on it before posting here. Please consider actively
>participating in the FO3 mod community once the editor is released.
>Yes, I do agree that steeply increasing the difficulty at the hard
>setting for all player-actions, including lock-picking and the
>mini-game,, would be a boon, especially when playing the game
>2nd or 3rd time round. It would be nice also to have, say, a random
>selection of 3 or 4 different types of mini-game for the "unlock
>terminals". FO3 is one-dimensional like Bioshock in this specific
>respect. By the time Bioshock ended, I had got very tired of the
>jig-saw fitting....
>
The problem with this is that for a game that I spend a lot of time
with upon release I no longer have much interest in playing by the
time the mods are ready. Yeah, I'd be even happier with FO3 with a
few easy mods, but in a few weeks I won't care anymore. I've already
seen virtually all the content and don't have much interest in seeing
it again with a mod anytime soon. Maybe in a year or something.
Some games I don't buy right away and I get mods or whatever before I
play. I did that with Oblivion and I think I was much happier with it
than if I had played it more right after release. I didn't buy the
Witcher until they put out the enhanced edition with better
translation and restored content. I imagine I would have panned the
game as fatally flawed if I hadn't waited. As it was, I thought it
was excellent.
So it's pretty important that some of these things get it right
without having to mod the game. Most people don't mod games; people
like us are a small minority. The steeper difficulty curve for both
the main game and the minigames at HARD and VERY HARD difficulties is
a no brainer that shouldn't require a mod. There's no reason for the
game not to be much tougher on VERY HARD than it is except
carelessness. And that bothers me because the majority of the game
shows a heck of a lot of time and caring was put into it.
-David
David T. Bilek
I dunno, John seems to have responded just fine to my refusal to
entertan the question and we're having a perfectly normal conversation
elsewhere in this thread, so while I still don't understand what would
possibly made somebody suspect that I'm a pirate just because I posted
some moderate criticism of an otherwise good game, it seems no harm
was done. I've got a thicker skin than that after being on Usenet for
such a long time, even if I stopped reading for a while recently.
Since I haven't been reading CSIPCG* for a while I don't have any
comment on the obvous feud some people are having over FO3 except to
say that it actually is probably best to have at least played the game
some if you're going to poop on it.
Since I've put 50+ hours into it I think my criticisms can be taken
seriously even if people don't agree with them completely. Even
though I'm clearly right and they are wrong. Heh.
-David
Mark Morrison
<david...@att.net> wrote:
>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:57:45 -0800, David T. Bilek
>><david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As opposed to your implication that I pirated FO3, which is quite
>>>civil.
>>
>>No implication, just the obvious alternate question without explicitly
>>stating the obvious..
>>
>>So did you buy the game or did you not?
>>
>>The answer is one word and not even a four-letter one.....
>>
>
>Bullshit, it's an attempt to delegitimize my opinion of FO3 based on
>innuendo. And, like the candidate in the movie THE CONTENDER which I
>just watched, I'm not going to answer a ridiculous question that never
>should have been asked in the first place.
>
I'm just waiting for John Lewis to ask if you paid to see The
Contender, too...
JAB
Yes you are entitled to an opinion, as are we all, but that doesn't mean
that all opinions are equal does it? Let me see, the opinion of someone
who decided that it was going to be shit from the start and hasn't
actually played the game but still thinks it's shit ... erm that worth,
well shit isn't it?
They should do all reviews like this I mean bugger mucking around with
actually playing the game to form an opinion - exactly how does that help?
JAB
... you should write reviews of more games you haven't played - heh
maybe you could even branch out into reviewing holiday destinations that
you've never been to!
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
His popularity should climb in leaps & bounds around here then! ;)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Domini:
>> That's all IMO of course, which I am entitled to, whether I've played the
>> game or not, whether you agree or not. Live with it, build a bridge, get
>> over it. QED.
>>
>
>Yes you are entitled to an opinion, as are we all, but that doesn't mean
>that all opinions are equal does it? Let me see, the opinion of someone
>who decided that it was going to be shit from the start and hasn't
>actually played the game but still thinks it's shit ... erm that worth,
>well shit isn't it?
>
>They should do all reviews like this I mean bugger mucking around with
>actually playing the game to form an opinion - exactly how does that help?
Fark me, it's like the Oblivion (Oblivious?) debacle all over again! I won't
be sucked into this debate again & certainly not into trying a POS game I
*know* I won't like, based on many previews, reviews & testimonials &
separating the bullshit from the facts. I've stated my case clearly &
succinctly enough on numerous occasions. If I have to explain it one more
time I think I'll have an aneurysm ffs!!! I know you're intelligent enough
to understand as least this much JAB. Pls don't prove me wrong.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Domini:
Keep flogging that flaccid dick mate - I've reviewed *nothing* I haven't
played here, ever. I have, however, taken many reviews into account to reach
a conclusion about this lemon & all the fanbois hot air here.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0800, Anno Domini:
The problem is, most fanbois here are pathologically incapable of accepting
2nd or 3rd hand reviews or evidence beyond the poster himself. On the one
hand they might be semi-courteous to someone who has played their
preciiiooouuus & may have something negative/non-praising to say about it;
then, OTOH, if you use those _exact_ same testimonials to draw your own
conclusions, as any reasonable person would of another reasonable person's
opinion that they can relate to, you're automatically branded as having no
credibility or authority. IOW, the assumption & straw man they hide behind &
cling to is that your opinions only count if you've played the game
1st-hand, so if you've made an informed decision based on all the other
1st-hand opinions here, your reasoning in arriving at that is null & void.
I wonder how TF these ppl function in society & 'make up their own mind'
when they can only accept & respect opinions from the same narrow-minded,
subculture of thinkers who share the same thought processes & likes/dislikes
& then only the shit they have to try/experience first-hand themselves. They
have no concept about taking things at face value or on faith, when it suits
their own ends/arguments, yet we all know that 99% of almost everything we
do & base our lives on requires us to take much of what we don't experience
in the context of our own lives & draw conclusions according to pre-existing
frameworks of opinion/knowledge & tastes. Otherwise, we could never have a
say about almost everything without being considered total hypocrites.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
Any good? I might d/l that now. >8^D
--
Nostromo
JAB
I don't have a problem with you saying that you don't *believe* you
would like the game - heh there's lots of games I just know I'm not
going to like - but please don't try and say that game is shit *fact*
without having played it. There is a difference you know?
JAB
> Thus spake JAB <noch...@nohope.com>, Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:56:38 +0000, Anno
> Domini:
>
>> Nostromo wrote:
>>> Thus spake JAB <noch...@nohope.com>, Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:13:54 +0000, Anno
>>> Domini:
>>>
>>>> So then Nos you got a copy of the game yet?
>>>> 8^D Nope! >8^P
>>> (but I feel like I've suffered through the turd for weeks with all the crap
>>> interplay here :)
>>>
>> ... you should write reviews of more games you haven't played - heh
>> maybe you could even branch out into reviewing holiday destinations that
>> you've never been to!
>
> Keep flogging that flaccid dick mate - I've reviewed *nothing* I haven't
> played here, ever. I have, however, taken many reviews into account to reach
> a conclusion about this lemon & all the fanbois hot air here.
>
So let me get this straight anyone who dares like the game is a fanboy
yet anyone who expresses a negative opinion is obviously totally right?
If I was being cynical would say you're picking and choosing just those
comments that back up your opinion - a bit like being religious.
morvak
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:33:14 -0500, "Gregory E. Garland"
>
>
>
>
>
> <g...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"David T. Bilek" <davidbi...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:hsuhh450nfkvj6j5g...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I am arguing that a wider variety of perks should be useful and
> >> interesting.
>
> >Perks is perks.
>
> >> There are too many useless perks. I'm not arguing for fewer perks,
> >> I'm arguing for more non-useless ones.
>
> >Then your argument is incoherent. The fundamental aspect of an rpg
> >is that you must chose how your character develops his/her skills; the
> >abstract elements of a particular rpg system are independant of any
> >particular game they may be used in, despite whatever historical
> >association they may have. The mere fact that you can choose
> >wrongly in the context of a particular game is not a defect; it is
> >a feature.
>
> That's a ridiculous argument. How about adding in 15 more perks that
> each give you +1 to a particular skill, then? After all, perks is
> perks and the mere fact that you could choose wrongly is not a defect.
>
> -David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not anymore ridiculous than what you are saying.
If I'm building a character that excels in Small Guns, Sneaking,
Lockpicking, Science and Repair, and I already have my intelligence at
9, agility at 8 and above average perception, I have no need for a
Perk that gives me +1 to a SPECIAL. I'm happy where my character's
SPECIAL is at. So I would rather take the perk that gives 5 skills
points to 2 skills.
Know what that's called? Freedom of choice. Just because you, David,
think the perks are meaningless, doesn't mean they actually are, nor
should every other gaming not be able to use them.
I'm not looking to max out my character. I haven't even tried the perk
that opens up dialogue for opposite sex or children. So what if they
aren't that many dialogue options? It exists to give people more
choice and more replayability.
As far as the game not being difficult - I doubt you even played the
game.I am on my way to Arefu as a level 5 character and encountered a
crazed Protectron, Mirelurks and bandits all within the same area and
find it difficult. And I'm playing on Hard.
And I highly doubt you did EVERY SINGLE quest.
morvak
> john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>
> >You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
> Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
> problem with FO3 is that it is neither an excellent RPG nor a very
> good FPS. It's a mishmash of both.
Not impressed by your resume'. Everyone here has been playing CRPG's
since they were invented.
There are plenty of RPG purists here. So get off your high horse kid.
FO3 is a great RPG *and* FPS game. The RPG is there. The FPS is great
- when I'm done vats and in a serious fight, I right click to increase
my weapon's aim and fire at the enemy. A few well places shots between
VATS serves me well.
>
> >Sure FO3 will
> >play as a FPS of sorts, but that is not its true focus. I am currently
> >playing the game deliberately as a weak "small-arms warrior' but
> >building good sneak and speech skills and having a blast adventuring
> >through the game. I have completed a few stages of the Main Quest, but
> >keep on getting diverted into some very interesting side-quests.
>
> I completed every quest in the game.
Sure you did.
>
>
>
> >In FO3 can start up as many new characters in parallel as you like
> >and access the save-games of any of them without exiting the game to
> >desktop. If the humor takes me, I might start off another character in
>
> >a few days times with the intent to build him/her into a FPS
> >uber-warrior and blast my way through the game... or I might not....
>
> And unless you deliberately cripple your character, you still won't
> find any of it challenging. Fun, maybe, but not challenging.
Sure, it's not challenging. You must be playing on normal or easy
mode.
>
>
>
> >The joy of FO3 is that the type of in-game character,skills chosen and
> >style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional character
> >linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice being the
> >game's difficulty-level.
>
> Like I said, I'm a CRPG purist. Sandbox type "RPGs" like the Elder
Sure you are.
> Scrolls stuff are mostly an excuse not to have to make an interesting
> plotline or good character interaction. It's a heck of a lot easier
> to make an engine and then tell people to create their own game than
> it is to craft a masterwork like Planescape: Torment or even a more
> traditional RPG like Baldur's Gate II.
>
> Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
>
> -David
In your opinion of course. I guess by the number of sales FO3 is an
epic fail.
morvak
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:41:29 -0800, David T. Bilek
>
> <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
> >john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
>
> >>You betray yourself as a one-dimensional FPS player.
>
> >Hi-larious. I've been playing CRPGs since Wizardy. The first one. I
> >doubt there's anyone who is more of an RPG purist than I am.
>
>
> > The
> >problem with FO3 is that it is neither an excellent RPG nor a very
> >good FPS. It's a mishmash of both.
>
> >>play as a FPS of sorts, but that is not its true focus. I am currently
> >>playing the game deliberately as a weak "small-arms warrior' but
> >>building good sneak and speech skills and having a blast adventuring
> >>through the game. I have completed a few stages of the Main Quest, but
> >>keep on getting diverted into some very interesting side-quests.
>
> >I completed every quest in the game.
>
> hand and with a complete game guide in the other ?? You are aware
> that many of the quests do branch quite differently, subject to
> various conditions......(no spoilers..). Nice to know that you played
> through the complete game with several different character types. Such
> a dedicated soul....
>
> Yep, you sure know how to play a CRPG...
>
> >The problem is not that there
> >isn't enough to do, the problem is that none of it is challenging. You
> >can play for hours and hours and never find anything difficult.
>
> Really, you must be a truly brilliant player not to get killed a few
> times during the game, and never have to replay a quest because you
> screwed up... Or maybe you mean something totally different
> by your statement "never find anything difficult" ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>In FO3 can start up as many new characters in parallel as you like
> >>and access the save-games of any of them without exiting the game to
> >>desktop. If the humor takes me, I might start off another character in
>
> >>a few days times with the intent to build him/her into a FPS
> >>uber-warrior and blast my way through the game... or I might not....
>
> >And unless you deliberately cripple your character, you still won't
> >find any of it challenging. Fun, maybe, but not challenging.
>
> >>style of play is entirely up to YOU. Not the one-dimensional character
> >>linear game-play of the typical FPS, with the only choice being the
> >>game's difficulty-level.
>
> >Like I said, I'm a CRPG purist.
>
>
> > Sandbox type "RPGs" like the Elder
> >plotline or good character interaction.
>
> interesting/fun/hilarious character-interactions? You have been
> playing the just-released FO3 and not some demo from years ago ??
>
> > It's a heck of a lot easier
> >to make an engine and then tell people to create their own game than
> >it is to craft a masterwork like Planescape: Torment or even a more
> >traditional RPG like Baldur's Gate II.
>
> >Sandbox games are lazy and a blight on CRPGs.
>
> is not a "sandbox" game, btw. The quests are scripted, even the
> hundred or so mini-quests... Daggerfall, with its random dungeon
> generation was a "sandbox" game. Probably less than 5% of the
> encounters in FO3 are products of randomly-generated events.
>
> I didn't notice "the Witcher" listed above. Below your dignity? Not
> quite meet your standards of CRPG excellence?
>
> You did buy FO3, didn't you ?? Since you put in all those hours into
> the game, you must surely have bought it. Buying a game you knew
> in advance you would not like was a very generous gesture indeed.
> Bethesda should be very pleased by your magnanimity.
>
> Or did you just happen to get your copy from the same sources as your
> fellow CRPG expert-authority Nostromo ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >-David- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
hahahaha Nice.
morvak
> john....@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote:
> ><davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>As opposed to your implication that I pirated FO3, which is quite
> >>civil.
>
> >No implication, just the obvious alternate question without explicitly
> >stating the obvious..
>
> >So did you buy the game or did you not?
>
> >The answer is one word and not even a four-letter one.....
>
> Bullshit, it's an attempt to delegitimize my opinion of FO3 based on
> innuendo. And, like the candidate in the movie THE CONTENDER which I
> just watched, I'm not going to answer a ridiculous question that never
> should have been asked in the first place.
>
If you didn't buy the game you have no reason to gripe.
It's the same as voting. If you didn't vote, you have no reason to
gripe about the political system.
But that's OK, but constantly avoiding the question we all know you
downloaded the pirated copy.
morvak
> Thus spake "CJM" <cjmnew...@example.com>, Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:29 -0000,
> Anno Domini:
>
>
>
> >"David T. Bilek" <davidbi...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:gs9ih4la2uqh6s8su...@4ax.com...
>
> >> I live but to serve.
>
> >David, in Morvaks defense, he's been looking forward to the game for a
> >while, and all along there has been a group who were determined not to like
> >the game regardless of how it turned out - led by Nostromo, but there were
> >others too.
>
> That's because the real fans knew from the *start* that it would turn out
LOL you did not just say that. REAL fans? What are you 10 years
old!?
morvak
> Thus spake JAB <nocha...@nohope.com>, Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:13:54 +0000, Anno
You're a piece of work. Constantly spouting your assinine remarks over
something you haven't even experienced.
Do you always stick your nose into something when you don't know
anything about it? I'd hate to be around you in real life.
morvak
> The problem with this is that for a game that I spend a lot of time
> with upon release I no longer have much interest in playing by the
> time the mods are ready. Yeah, I'd be even happier with FO3 with a
> few easy mods, but in a few weeks I won't care anymore. I've already
> seen virtually all the content and don't have much interest in seeing
Ass. One thread you say you completed every quest and all the content
in the game, not you just admitted you've seen "virtually" all the
content which contradicts what you previously stated. Nice. Now
anything you say is suspect, pirate.
JAB
> As far as the game not being difficult - I doubt you even played the
> game.I am on my way to Arefu as a level 5 character and encountered a
> crazed Protectron, Mirelurks and bandits all within the same area and
> find it difficult. And I'm playing on Hard.
>
Mirelurks are difficult little buggers at the best of times. I had the
misfortune to run across a couple when I was only level 3 - did I run,
yep after the reload but to one of the traders who's bodyguard dealt
with them.
CoinSpin
Huh... I took that as saying he didn't walk every square inch of the
map, which by all accounts is *huge* and that trek would be
mind-numbingly boring. But hey, I'm looking at it objectively and not
through radioactive rose colored glasses...
--
~ CoinSpin
morvak
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walking every square inch is not the point.
> On Nov 11, 1:41 am, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
> I completed every quest in the game.
> > On Nov 12, 3:18 am, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
> >> few easy mods, but in a few weeks I won't care anymore. I've already
> >> seen virtually all the content and don't have much interest in seeing
The point is: this guy is a liar. One day he says he completed every
quest, the next it's "i've seen VIRTUALLY all the content".
So I should give creedence to a lying pirate who then goes on to say:
On Nov 12, 3:24 am, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
> Since I've put 50+ hours into it I think my criticisms can be taken
> seriously even if people don't agree with them completely. Even
> though I'm clearly right and they are wrong. Heh.
?
I don't think so.
Not to mention the fact that he's trying to say that the perk that
gives you extra dialogue for children and the opposite sex are
meaningless because they don't give him as much dialogue as other
NPC's. #1 He didn't complete every quest and is only 50 hours in a
100+ hour game, so how does he know for sure? Besides the fact that
he's suspect from saying he completed every quest in the game and then
is now only 50 hours into it.
Second, a game is a fail because the dialogue of children and opposite
sex does not consist of hundreds of lines? It's a PERK. It's a
LIIIIIIIIIIIIITLE extra something. It's not "OPEN UP A WORLD OF NEW
DIALOGUE WITH CHILDREN!" Get real.
morvak
Exactly. I'm being chased by an angry Protectron, there's the B&B full
of raiders, and then I'm being chased by 2 mirelurks not to mention
the half dozen or more near the pier. And the game is easy? Yeah, ok.
Sure.
WDS
It was fairly late in the game (level 14-15 maybe?) and my compass lit
up with a bunch of markers as I was poking around some remote area. I
walked around the corner into a herd of molerats. The damn things
chewed me to bits. Yeah, I should have paused and used more stimpacks
(I did use a bunch!) but still...
The combat CAN be easy just like it could be in FO 1/2. Max your IQ,
tag one combat stat (small guns), and dump all skill points into
that. Look over the perks and set the other stats so you can grab the
combat perks as they appear (especially the ones that give toughness,
better crits and more often, and etc.).
I actually did that one time in FO 2 and the combat was really easy.
By level 4 (? I think) I had small guns well over 100 and could do eye
shots every time. With the pistol you started with it was pretty easy
and once I got a hunting rifle combat was trivial from then on.
Getting a gauss rifle made combat a joke. I could take out guys in
power armor in single shots to the eyes at pretty much any range they
appeared. I just charged into the final place and killed everything
to see if I could do it. No problem.
Morgan
>
> I don't have a problem with you saying that you don't *believe* you
> would like the game - heh there's lots of games I just know I'm not
> going to like - but please don't try and say that game is shit *fact*
> without having played it. There is a difference you know?
You're just a bold faced fanboy JAB. It's ridiculous to expect someone to
play a game before condemning it as the worst thing to happen to the human
race since George Formby. I for one am sick of all the sheep, fanboys and
figments of my imagination who have the audacity to suggest that Flopout 3
might have some good points. All this is a side note, I don't understand
how some many of you dared to go out a buy a game that Nos had *already*
told you wouldn't be any good *before* it had even been released. How thick
are you lot? And then not only did you buy it, but you expect to be allowed
to discus it in this group, even though Nos has clearly stated that it's not
an RPG. JAB your idiocy astounds me. :-)