HOLY **** FALLOUT 3 TRAILER FROM E3

[marcus]

You're assuming this is true (it's not), or that it's great for any of the same reasons Fallout is.

HURF DURF OPINION = FACT

Considering the number of times I've played Fallout 2 and the fact that I still find new crap in conversations and little quests I didn't know existed (despite using a guide once) and the multitude of proper ways to actually achieve whatever goal you have I'm beginning to doubt you've ever actually played Fallout.

There's three ways to win in Fallout (all of which end up doing the same thing) and only one way to win in Fallout 2.

WARNING FALLOUT SPOILERS:


*** SPOILERS ***
In Fallout it's by killing the Overseer and in Fallout 2 it's by killing Horrigan (which only happens after you free your village and set the auto destruct sequence).

There's only three options to killing the overseer, one is by actually fighting him, convincing him to kill himself, or arming the nukes yourself. This assumes that you have a lockpick skill high enough to reach the nuke and a science skill high enough to arm it. If you don't have a high enough charisma and intelligence you can't influence the overseer and you still have to make it through the military base which contains the computer files necessary to provide proof to stop the overseer. Killing the overseer is the only way to end the game outside of being turned into a mutant or letting the timer run out.

There's only one way to kill Horrigan and that's by fighting him. If you decided to make a non-lethal character like in Fallout you're pretty much screwed even with a full party, activated sentry guns, and those goons you can convince to help you.
*** END SPOILERS ***


I don't think someone who never played Fallout would know this.

can you prove this, i've been playing Fallout 2 again recently and am pretty sure you are either mistaken or a liar.

I will gradually play through the game from now until Fallout 3's release and count the number of quest givers that actually have something more interesting to say other than "welcome to the den blah blah blah news." I guarantee you'll be surprised by the low number. Off the top of my head, Arroyo had:

Arroyo herself: Who gave you a quest and said nothing of interest after that
Morlis: You can either trade her something for flint or if you have a high enough charisma you can demand it from her
Hakunin: Who asks you to kill a bunch of plants but his dialog doesn't change regardless if you're mean to him.
Nagor: Asks you to find his dog, no dialog choices affect the outcome or the quest in general.
Bridge Guard Guy: I think if you bring him the flint he sharpens your spear but nothing effects this decision you must have the flint.

So in village 1 alone you have a grand total of 3 quest givers and 1 multiple choice scenario. Every other character will freely improve your skills and give out general information that's repeated by everyone.

And no, I'm NOT comparing Fallout to Oblivion because they're both different games. Fallout doesn't have the same level of exploration that Oblivion does and Oblivion doesn't have the same level of dialog that Fallout does. And before you go "OPEN SPACES HAHA EXPLORATION" let me remind you that outside of the random events on the worldmap which all took place in one of three maps (all of which were either open desert or cliffside desert), Fallout 2 is made up of about 13 locations with 7 or so "dungeons" minor locations (Ghost Farm, Nvarro, etc. being counted as a dungeon or minor location) and Fallout has even less than that.

You might not like Oblivion but that's not the point of this "debate." My point is whether or not Fallout 3 would be a better game with personalized diaog instead of general topics even though the end result is the same and only one person has answered yes and that person is Cutter De Blanc.

So either answer the question or I keep telling you you're wrong until I reinstall Fallout and Fallout 2 and politely show you you're wrong.

[Garr123]

Re: HOLY **** FALLOUT 3 TRAILER FROM E3

HURF DURF OPINION = FACT

being of the opinion that oblivion isn't as good as fallout is like being of the opinion that the sky is blue.

also just off the top of my head fully written multi-branching dialogue trees or quest thingies The Den:


Flick
Metzger
Bob?
Julie(Casion owner)?
The guy that owes Julie money
Car Guy
Jet Dealer(spike?)
Mom
Vic
Mummy displayer?
Mummy
Ghost
Gang leader 1(The guys fighting to serve Metzger)
Gang leader 2 (And the guy gaurding the door I think)
Brotherhood of Steel guy

I'm probably missing a couple; I think you can talk at length to one of Metzger's slaves. I just put ?s where I couldn't remember their name.

if i did vault city it would probably be twice as long, and most of the people have more involved dialogue trees to boot. your 30 NPCS is wrong.


edit: someone needs to tell marcus this isn't a thesis writing contest.

[John Mora]

Re: HOLY **** FALLOUT 3 TRAILER FROM E3

I DUNNO, THE ISOMETRIC VIEW OF FALLOUT 2 IS ******* ME OFF

[Garr123]

Re: HOLY **** FALLOUT 3 TRAILER FROM E3

uh oh Fallout 3 just got blasted by Eurogamer after their hands-on

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=201105

Basically, it’s got that stiff, Oblivion style animation, the combat offers poor tactile feedback, the art direction is uninspired, and the writing is "off-kilter".

But beyond that, there are simple questions of quality that it's impossible to avoid: characterless art, cold visuals, wonky animation, weak real-time combat, off-kilter writing. As it stands, Fallout 3 just doesn't feel right, and it will leave many players shivering for warmth in its nuclear winter.

They also mention you can no longer target specific body parts with melee weapons, which sucks because my favorite thing to do was hit people in the groin with my baseball bat until they passed out.

On a happier note they mention Dead Space which--after watching some of the gameplay videos and reading up on the design--I'm beginning to think is going to be a sleeper hit.

[marcus]

I don't get what they mean by the art direction is uninspired when they mentioned several times in the article that it successfully looks like a barren bleak destroyed world and they congratulated several other aspects like the pipboy design. On a positive note:

These are: Barter, Big Guns, Energy Weapons, Explosives, Lockpick, Medicine, Melee Weapons, Repair, Science, Small Guns, Sneak, Speech and Unarmed.

Now that I see a finalized skill list I'm happy. Outdoorsman, doctor, and gamble were the most useless skills in the game and I'm glad they got rid of them. I'm still ****** that not a single demo Bethesda has released (although this sounds like the same demo they showed LAST YEAR) has bartering or speech. I always liked Morrowind/Oblivion's barter system much more than Fallout's (I'd rather set a price for each item then have it calculated automatically) so I'm happy about this as well.

I'm also happy with how they changed the perk system to be more relevant to the game as most of the perks in Fallout were a joke (Karma Sutra? okay whatever).

As far as combat goes, it sounds exactly like STALKER and Deus Ex which were criticized for the same things regarding the combat but it turned out that people who had problems with the guns either weren't skilled in them or were moving while shooting which you simply can't do.

Finally

The game's showing in the Microsoft press conference was something of a bum note as well, with its gleeful ultra-violence and portable nukes failing to evoke the more down-to-earth flavour of grit Fallout is known for.

I can't stand this. Every time they talk about the game they blow the combat way out of proportion while understating the other aspects. SOMETIMES they'll talk about the dialog and bartering and they'll mention things like how your choices are often morally ambiguous and karma plays a role in your alignment so you can be deemed crazy and stuff like that but then they instantly start talking about portable nukes.

Every video they've shown they have the bloody mess perk and it's ridiculous. Bethesda tries to sell to a mainstream audience because, frankly, with the cost games requires they need as much income as possible to be economically feasible but (most) gamers aren't stupid. Mass Effect's dialog system was simple in its execution but BioWare would often highlight it in every interview. In every interview I've read from Bethesda, they briefly mention a lot of positive aspects of the game then instantly switch to GORE GORE GORE BLOODY MESS BLOODY MESS.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 4th Quarter 2008 is so far away. I'm hoping for an October release date, god damn.

[Kefka Jr.]

Re: HOLY **** FALLOUT 3 TRAILER FROM E3

Gives them more time to keep it from being terrible RIIIIIIIIGHT?

[John Mora]

Re: HOLY **** FALLOUT 3 TRAILER FROM E3

Because development time was all that Too Human needed.