Just for clarification

[Gooscar]

I'm not posting this to flame bait or troll or anything juvenile.

I want to make sure I understand what it is that Fallout fans to not like about BethSoft's Fallout 3. And I figure I can get a honest answer citing examples rather than simply "It isn't Fallout" from the people on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I think they precieve it. In this case:

1) Choice and Consequence - Choices are presented and written more obviously and simpler than the first two, and the consequences are less subtle than precieved.

2) SPECIAL System - Cuts and reductions in point allocation and available skills, starting traits, proliferation of perks, and design leniency as to how your skills/stats either assist or prevent you from doing tasks, as well as this system catering more to guns and explosions than melee and brains.

3) Dark Ironic Humor - While this is kinda nullified by "every player's experience will be different/subject to individual interpretation", the dialogue and situations are more childish and less distinct than the first two games. Additionally, they have issue with BethSoft taking licence with Fallout's canon based upon gameplay within the first two games, like the BOS being more Arthurian than Illuminati, the Enclave being on two coasts, and the presentation of Super Mutants in general fo example.

4) PA-50's - I guess they're less god-like than the first two games.

5) Americana Sci-Fi - Don't think they're complaining about that. Though I think there will be a few squeaks and shouts of more modern influences infecting the retro 50's style where it otherwise wouldn't have been presented as.

6) NPCs and Dialogue - Again, "every player's experience will be different/subject to individual interpretation". There is an excess of easily forgettable characters in Fallout 3, where as nearly every talking head in the first two was fully realized, fleshed out, and had their own history and quirks to show when you talked to them.

7) Talking heads - Everyone's a talking head, a bastardized zoom-in distinctless talking head with no facial expressions whatsoever.

8) Good/Bad/Guy with Gun - I don't think they're complaining about that. Though the Karma system feedback makes every action immediately black or white.

 

[Sander]

1) Choice and Consequence - Choices are presented and written more obviously and simpler than the first two, and the consequences are less subtle than precieved.

Actually, consequences are largely absent. Hell, a lot of choices are locked out because they'd break the main story.

2) SPECIAL System - Cuts and reductions in point allocation and available skills, starting traits, proliferation of perks, and design leniency as to how your skills/stats either assist or prevent you from doing tasks, as well as this system catering more to guns and explosions than melee and brains.

Also, it doesn't really feel like you're creating a unique character. All the skills and stats feel really cheap because of the ease of increasing them and a lack of real consequences other than more loot/slightly easier paths from having speech/lockpick/science.

3) Dark Ironic Humor - While this is kinda nullified by "every player's experience will be different/subject to individual interpretation", the dialogue and situations are more childish and less distinct than the first two games. Additionally, they have issue with BethSoft taking licence with Fallout's canon based upon gameplay within the first two games, like the BOS being more Arthurian than Illuminati, the Enclave being on two coasts, and the presentation of Super Mutants in general fo example.

Another good example of this is that all raiders have apparently turned into bloodthirsty psychopaths who enjoy littering their homes with decapitated corpses hanging from the roof.

 

[Gooscar]

3) Dark Ironic Humor - While this is kinda nullified by "every player's experience will be different/subject to individual interpretation", the dialogue and situations are more childish and less distinct than the first two games. Additionally, they have issue with BethSoft taking licence with Fallout's canon based upon gameplay within the first two games, like the BOS being more Arthurian than Illuminati, the Enclave being on two coasts, and the presentation of Super Mutants in general fo example.

Another good example of this is that all raiders have apparently turned into bloodthirsty psychopaths who enjoy littering their homes with decapitated corpses hanging from the roof.

Just so I'm clear on this point, the more commonly accepted Fallout games do not have any examples of Radiers behaving in this manner, or have examples contradicting this behavior?

Or is it a case of one or few examples being taken to an extreme?

 

[Tapakidney]

Another good example of this is that all raiders have apparently turned into bloodthirsty psychopaths who enjoy littering their homes with decapitated corpses hanging from the roof.

I'm so glad someone here said this so well... It was bothering me quite a bit, and no one seemed to be mentioning it.

 

[Sander]

Just so I'm clear on this point, the more commonly accepted Fallout games do not have any examples of Radiers behaving in this manner, or have examples contradicting this behavior?

Or is it a case of one or few examples being taken to an extreme?

I don't recall anything of this type happening in any of the first two games (although I think Tactics might've had some of it happening).
What does happen is that skulls are used at times, but mostly outside on poles.

But full decaying bodies, nope.

 

[TheFlyingBuddha]

Actually, consequences are largely absent. Hell, a lot of choices are locked out because they'd break the main story.

I keep seeing this complaint thrown around. Other than killing Dad, children, and a handful of plot characters, where else do you feel your choice so terribly constrained? Yes the main plot is fairly linear but you are free to ignore it and explore the many other quests.

I kept finding quests with multiple paths to completion, and a decent number of those paths had actual effects on the world around me. My only real complaint is that Beth failed to utilize these choices to create and endgame sequence similar to the first games where you can see how your actions played out over time but I can still easily imagine how some of it might be different.

Edit: I will admit the raiders and dead bodies thing is pushing it. But then most of the various groups got caricatured to some extent, brotherhood, muties, ghouls, etc. Which yes, is a drawback but not entirely damning to my enjoyment, personally.

 

[Sander]

I keep seeing this complaint thrown around. Other than killing Dad, children, and a handful of plot characters, where else do you feel your choice so terribly constrained? Yes the main plot is fairly linear but you are free to ignore it and explore the many other quests.

Er, yes, I could ignore a big part of the game because it's flawed. I suppose that's how most reviewers play this game.

And it's not just a handful of plot characters that are unkillable. It's most of the Brotherhood of Steel. It's all of the Rivet City science team. It's Amata for some unfathomable reason. It's an entire town filled with children you have to drudge through in the main quest (seriously, what the fuck were they smoking when they decided it was a good idea to make children unkillable and then annoy the player to the point where he's going to be very tempted to want to kill children anyway)?

And most quests really feature either no choice at all, or minor choices that only affect rewards.
For example:
[spoiler:e172db91dc]You can kill Harold, accelerate his growth, stop his growth, it has exactly 0 effect except in the rather underpowered rewards you get. [/spoiler:e172db91dc]

Of course, there are exceptions:
[spoiler:e172db91dc]Crowley's quest was pretty good[/spoiler:e172db91dc]

And the main plot isn't just fairly linear. It's entirely linear (except for the part where you can skip some part of it if you go straight to Vault 112).

I kept finding quests with paths to completion, and a decent number of those had actual effects on the world around me. My only real complaint is that Beth failed to utilize these choices to create and endgame sequence similar to the first games where you can see how your actions played out over time but I can still easily imagine how some of it might be different.

Ah yes, the Oblivion style of gameplay: imagine it was any good.
Hah!

 

[Gooscar]

I would consider the Raider thing to be artistic licence taken to an extreme if that's the case.

 

[Tapakidney]

I would consider the Raider thing to be artistic licence taken to an extreme if that's the case.

Artistic license, or juvenile idea of the concept of "raiders"?

 

[Sander]

I would consider the Raider thing to be artistic licence taken to an extreme if that's the case.

Er, you could consider the entire game artistic license. But people don't throw around corpses around their homes, ever, unless they're complete psychopaths. And the point in the Fallout universe is that people are people, not dehumanized objects (which is what Fallout 3 makes them).

 

[Gooscar]

And the main plot isn't just fairly linear. It's entirely linear (except for the part where you can skip some part of it if you go straight to Vault 112).

I wouldn't say linear, more like sequencial, in the sense that you aren't forced to abandon all other tasks at hand and do this now-now-now, but you eventually gotta do something about the specified task to get the next clue. A pick-up plot so to speak.

Stumbling upon Vault 112 freaked me out and felt like a let down because I felt like I missed more than I should have. I was totally unprepared for it and the ensuing dialogue didn't help much.

Ah yes, the Oblivion style of gameplay: imagine it was any good.
Hah!

I think he meant that it was left ambigious so the player could leave it to his own imagination to consider the fate of something, rather than the endgame checking off each box.

Artistic license, or juvenile idea of the concept of "raiders"?

Er, you could consider the entire game artistic license. But people don't throw around corpses around their homes, ever, unless they're complete psychopaths. And the point in the Fallout universe is that people are people, not dehumanized objects (which is what Fallout 3 makes them).

I'll stick with artistic license, it's an unbiased statement that fits the bill can be interpreted either way. Though I would argue that people left to their own devices and relatively unchecked power will eventually do strange things, which is a theme in Fallout games. It's something I can accept, but that arguement is not the topic at hand.

Anything else regarding the points, or am I missing something big, or is something pretty much a non-issue?

 

[I_eat_supermutants]

As it's been said before. the choice is there but there is no real consequence for your actions.

I save Megaton (for example) all I had gotten was a house and a thank you.

I blow up Megaton, I get a house and a thank you. Mr. Burke was quite pleased.

Obviously a basic analogy but still stands that it really isn't a consequence.

It's like Fallout's system was dulled to a point to where you can't write legibly anymore.

 

[Sander]

I wouldn't say linear, more like sequencial, in the sense that you aren't forced to abandon all other tasks at hand and do this now-now-now, but you eventually gotta do something about the specified task to get the next clue. A pick-up plot so to speak.

Stumbling upon Vault 112 freaked me out and felt like a let down because I felt like I missed more than I should have. I was totally unprepared for it and the ensuing dialogue didn't help much.

The fact that you can actually find Vault 112 on your own is more Fallout-y than anything else in the main plot.
It shows that the world acts without your actions, and that you are free to do what you want.

Of course, that's pretty much the only instance of that.

I think he meant that it was left ambigious so the player could leave it to his own imagination to consider the fate of something, rather than the endgame checking off each box.

In other words: imagine your own ending.
As I said, this is what was often used to justify Oblivion by its fans: just imagine something extra happened behind the scenes.
It's nonsensical and not really good.

I'll stick with artistic license, it's an unbiased statement that fits the bill can be interpreted either way. Though I would argue that people left to their own devices and relatively unchecked power will eventually do strange things, which is a theme in Fallout games. It's something I can accept, but that arguement is not the topic at hand.

Yes, some people will go crazy.
But not every single instance of raiders in the entire wasteland capital goes crazy the exact same way.

 

[JOG]

As I said, this is what was often used to justify Oblivion by its fans: just imagine something extra happened behind the scenes. It's nonsensical and not really good.

Well, this kind of imaginative roleplaying works, of course it's better when the game has a proper reaction to all your actions, but when there is no reaction at all you can play pretend, just like children do.

This worked well in Arena Daggerfall and Morrowind, but Oblivion's "AI" completely crippled that way of playing, you can't pretend sneaking trough a house when the the owner follows your every step, even talks to you, but doesn't care about your trespassing, unless he sees you stealing something or this is actually a quest and he's scripted to feel offended.

So all that remains is an empty world with no reason to stray from the path (You won't loose the path anyway because the Next-Gen target audience is so preoccupied with important tasks like breathing and digesting, that they don't have the mental capabilities left to remember complex instructions like "go west".)

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, this kind of imaginative roleplaying works, of course it's better when the game has a proper reaction to all your actions, but when there is no reaction at all you can play pretend, just like children do.

Sorry, I'm about 10 years out of that age. I want to play the game, not "play pretend". Also, if I wanted to "imagine", I'd write a Fallout fanfic.

It's valid to leave interpretation of the ending up to the player, but not half the game plot details.

--------------------------
About the raiders: I guess Beth thought them up as generic monsters. Granted, in the originals you did get raiders in random encounters quite a bit, but the bottom line was that Raiders are represented by a number of well-organized groups competing for control of the wasteland, and living off scavenging more than trading or farming. In FO1 you actually had raiders who you could *gasp* talk to!

 

[JOG]

Well, this kind of imaginative roleplaying works, of course it's better when the game has a proper reaction to all your actions, but when there is no reaction at all you can play pretend, just like children do.

Sorry, I'm about 10 years out of that age.

Well, I should be 25-30 years out of that age but it's still fun from time to time

There aren't many games where you actually can do what you want no matter how silly it seems, Fallout was on one end of the scale, actually joining in, and the TES series (sans Oblivion and the other action adventures) was on the other end, leaving you alone to do whatever you want.

I want to play the game, not "play pretend".

And this is why you got a game; a solid, pretty one though not really an RPG. You didn't expect Bethsoft to suddenly create a game with as much *supported* freedom of choice as a Fallout or as much storytelling as an Ultima, did you?