Hey, glad you liked the preview. I was pretty proud of how it came out! And yes, it really was that good. Serious GOTY contender!
Draikin
1922
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1048860&postcount=102
Fallout 1&2: Incompetence Simulators!
Contrary to Fallout3, you can beat the game without fighting.
ZekeDMS
1923
Oh? In the end you still end up causing the deaths of many, via enclave explosion(and Frank Horrigan even if you have others fight him), or via nuke.
I’ve seen NOTHING to indicate you’re absolutely forced into killing people in F3. It’s already been made clear that you can run away and not be infinitely pursued, in fact, and that stealth is effective.
You can’t complain about things like that in a game you’ve yet to play. Just like F1/2, the violence is over the top and will be showcased heavily.
Contrary to Fallout3, Fallout1 solved my relationship issues.
…by ending the relationship?
What kind of fucking fairy plays RPGs and doesn’t kill anyone?
So let me get this straight, all this whining about being able to kill children, to dismember people, about Bethesda nerfing the gore and being a pussy, all that was bullshit because in a true RPG you don’t kill anyone ?
This is getting better every day…
Don’t be a dick. A true RPG is the one with freedom of action. Freedom to kill children if you want, and freedom to don’t kill anyone if you want. Freedom gives you the possibility of roleplay different characters.
A true RPG lets you access your inventory immediately no matter what you might want without having to potentially laboriously scroll through every item to get to it.
A true RPG isn’t riddled with bugs.
A true RPG has NPCs that aren’t so fucking stupid that even though they are completely devoted to you, they’ll demand a completely fair trade on items anyway, or open fire with full auto even though you are clearly in the firing arc, or insist on running outside a building to shoot a kid in the face and ruin your quest regardless of whether you want them to or not, necessitating you dumping them off somewhere so you can finish the quest successfully.
A true RPG has storekeepers that remember who the fuck you are after you save their lives.
A true RPG is dynamic, reactive, adaptive, mutable, and frequently breaks the rules and makes new ones as it sees fit to make for the most enjoyable possible experience for the people playing it.
…You seriously aren’t implying any of the prior Fallout games are “true” RPGs, right? Because they totally fucking aren’t. No computer RPG is a true RPG, whoops sorry limitations of the medium and all that. And if you want to claim they are, well then you can forget about claiming Fallout 3 - a game that is still to this day not actually out yet - is not, because you have moved the goal posts so far back a backwards lateral is a fucking touchdown in this debate, because then any game with stats building + plot + a role that you decide to play = an RPG. Every Elder Scrolls game Bethesda has made fits that criteria and I dare you to argue otherwise.
So basically a true RPG = Fallout.
Glad to know I was playing fake RPGs all these years.
Read again my post.
I am implying that one of the most important features of a RPG is the freedom of action. Even if some of those actions are the oppossite of the other ones.
To accuse one person of not making sense because he want action A (kill) and action B (to not kill) is very, very stupid. One of the basis of rpgs are precisely to choose between A and B. If a game only permit the player action A, it would be an action game. If a game only permit the player action B, it would be an adventure game or perhaps an stealth game.
hong
1933
Nonsense. Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.
That’s why it’s AWESOME.
Maybe I should have quote
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Then again, Fallout 3 haters do not make any sense. We’re told again and again how graphic and mature and violent and permissive the old Fallout were, we need children slayings and dismemberment, now Fallout 3 sucks because you can’t play without killing anyone (although I think Todd Howard said you could if you would even if the game isn’t designed that way). One day it’s black and the other day it’s white, the purpose being to trash the game not matter what angle you choose.
I’m well aware an RPG is also about choice and although you can argue that the original Fallouts were way better in that matter I truly believe the Elder Scrolls games were ahead of the rest of CRPGS in that regard, even if it was far from perfect. So shitting all over Bethesda regarding the supposed lack of freedom in their games, well…
You have done a man’s work this day, sir.
ok
Don’t be a dick. A true RPG is the one with freedom of action. Freedom to kill children if you want, and freedom to don’t kill anyone if you want. Freedom gives you the possibility of roleplay different characters.
I am implying that one of the most important features of a RPG is the freedom of action. Even if some of those actions are the oppossite of the other ones.
No, actually, you said a true RPG is one with freedom of action. Therefore, it’s not the most important feature, it is the foundation upon which all RPGs must build.
To accuse one person of not making sense because he want action A (kill) and action B (to not kill) is very, very stupid. One of the basis of rpgs are precisely to choose between A and B. If a game only permit the player action A, it would be an action game. If a game only permit the player action B, it would be an adventure game or perhaps an stealth game.
Choice is important, sure. But killing or not killing is simply one type of choice. Also, if you think you will have to kill every single person/thing you encounter, you obviously haven’t been reading any of the Fallout 3 news. At all.
To say that you must be able to play through an entire game without killing for it to be an RPG is hilarious.
Although, I will say, when you play D&D, you don’t actually have to use the rules. That’s got to make things work quicker.
Bill basically hit the nail on the head by noting that no CRPG is ever going to be a ‘true RPG’. When I’m playing Fallout 1, most of my choices are still pretty binary. Kill the guy or don’t kill the guy. I can’t make the choice to cut the guy’s legs off and then sell him into slavery at one of the waste’s many freak show/brothels.
Fallout might offer more choices than Final Fantasy VII, but that’s really not saying much. Fucking Metal Gear Solid 4, with its ‘you can use this gun or this gun’ gameplay options offers more choice than FFVII. No matter what, though, no CRPG is going to offer you ‘freedom of action’ anywhere close to being actually free. So don’t be going and making some dipshit argument based on ‘freedom of action’ being required to make a real RPG, cos by that definition, there aren’t any.
No. You read mine again.
Sure.
Congratulations. You have just attempted to argue that Fallout 1 (and perhaps Torment) is the only actual RPG ever made. Oh, go ahead and argue with me that hacking the gun turrets to shoot Horrigan at the end of F2 somehow doesn’t count. Because, see, if it does, then you’re going to have to accept that your action A is actually actions A through [total number of ways you can kill something in the game], and that Action B is just one among the many - one that still doesn’t apply to the end of Fallout 2.
Furthermore, Fallout 1 was a short, simplistic game compared to today’s tech. I take nothing away from the inspired decision to weave a very arduous but still possible path through it where no fighting is required, but Fallout 3 is expected to a much longer, more complex game.
Lastly, again, why would anyone play these games and not kill stuff? Also, why does a game have to have the exact same options (as you put them) for every situation through an entire game? Why should you be able to make your way through a post-apocalyptic hellscape and defeat mutated monstrosities without resorting to violence at some point? It pretty much comes with the territory. It’s expected. Shoehorning in a non-violent solution to every situation just to say you did it sounds to me like a waste of time and effort.
Similarly, I always find it funny when NMA or other absurdly hardcore Fallout fans are harping on this matter while insisting that Troika should have been the ones to make F3 when their last game, Bloodlines, completely left you out in the cold in terms of trying to proceed through the game nonviolently. And yet you dudes still wish they were making this game. At least Bethesda is giving you a heads-up.
And did you read the posts before mine? I was just borrowing the expression used before me, as i wanted to continue that discussion.
And who said anything about Fallout 3? And also, who said anything about killing everything/not killing? Do you have to read literally and take everything to the extremes?
I was answering to Prodigy’s answer to Daikin, the message before me. This one:
"So let me get this straight, all this whining about being able to kill children, to dismember people, about Bethesda nerfing the gore and being a pussy, all that was bullshit because in a true RPG you don’t kill anyone ?
This is getting better every day… "
He implied how it didn’t make sense to complain about two things just because they are in apparent conflict. It actually makes sense, games like Fallout have options, the broader the choices, the better. I don’t see contradiction in wanting to have both extreme solutions to the problems and very diplomatic and pacific solutions to the same problems.
