1941

Not the only one, but if one of the few where it feels more like a pen&pager rpg game.

Oh, go ahead and argue with me that hacking the gun turrets to shoot Horrigan at the end of F2 somehow doesn’t count.

What turret?

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.

And…? Fallout 2 is not my saviour and prophet, you know. In fact, i was not speaking about Fallout 1, nor Fallout 2, nor Fallout 3. I was speaking how you is not in conflict to want various actions to choose, even if some are good and some are bad.

Or are you going to critize also the Bioware games?

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.

Are you sure? I don’t know if Fallout 3 will be longer and more complex? Seems doubtful.

Lastly, again, why would anyone play these games and not kill stuff?

Dunno, i never did it. But sometimes i completed quest with violence and another quests with wits. You can use both, you don’t have to complete the game with only using A, or only using B.

Also, why does a game have to have the exact same options (as you put them) for every situation through an entire game?

It doesn’t have to, don’t put words on my mouth.

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.

I didn’t say you have to shoehorn everything to everything. Again, don’t put words on my mouth.

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.

Sorry, but i am not a hardcore Fallout fan.

1942

lolwut.jpg533×594

1943

Learn to read.
I was commenting Prodigy’s post before me. I wasn’t speaking about Fallout 3, dunno how much freedom we will have in it.

1944

I think you need to replay it, because it really doesn’t. Baldur’s Gate 2, now that feels like a PnP RPG game, if any. Fallout games are way too clunky, buggy and dated.

I knew it. You don’t even know what the hell is going on in this argument, a typical position from people whose only counterargument is “read the thread lulz.”

In fact, you weren’t speaking about video games at all! Whatever, man. And sure, I agree that having options in a game is great. I think we can all agree on that. You got anything else, because that’s pretty self-evident?

You can’t be serious. Come on Naebs, it’s been almost 10 years.

You sure don’t, so what’s the goddamned problem?

Your mouth! The words! Don’t put them there! At this point I have no idea what you are except that English probably isn’t your first language and may be contributing to at least a portion of this increasingly bizarre and pointless argument.

1945

Don’t put words in your mouth!

Prodigy’s post:

He’s talking about Fallout 3. I like how your first sentence is “don’t be a dick.” He’s not being a dick, he’s pointing out one of the many fallacies Fallout zealots exhibit when trying to slam Bethesda and Fallout 3 for its presumed shortcomings. In short, YOU READ THE THREAD, PAL.

1946

He’s talking about Fallout 3, indeed. I am not, i am talking about his words, not a future game, how there is no fallacy, at least not that fallacy.

I want a rpg with freedom. That includes freedom to resolve quests with different solutions, if possible. Sometimes, even if that includes kill some or in another place to not kill everything in place. Where is the fallacy, again?

1947

If you’re not talking about Fallout 3 and you don’t want people to think that you’re talking about Fallout 3, you might want to avoid doing it in a thread called ‘New Fallout 3 Info’ which is filled with people talking about Fallout 3.

Start a new thread. If you’re having problems coming up with a title that will sum up what you’re trying to say, might I suggest ‘I can’t stop typing the dumbest things ever!’?

1948

Ohh so nice, insulting people.

Ironic how you are right now writing in the Fallout 3 thread but now writing about Fallout 3! Do you know what? You should open a new thread for that. And i won’t suggest any titles.

1949

I have to say I am slightly sympathetic to the point that Fallout 3 apparently isn’t going to support (or at least not very well) two of the approaches to the earlier Fallout games that are considered part of what defined them. While I never had any interest in playing through them non-violently, there was something cool about the idea that some thought had been put into making that choice viable. Same with the low intelligence character. That doesn’t mean that Fallout 3 won’t end up being an excellent game, it just means that it will be following a more traditional path that is limited in comparison in some ways.

1950

I was just commenting on people insulting me daily on this forum.

Avellone said it better than myself:

Aside from the ability to advance your character, player choice (whether in character development or quest resolution) and world and character reactivity to these player’s choices is key.

Players want to build the character they envision, and then they want to push buttons in the world and see the world give them positive (or negative) feedback that is unique to their character - it makes them feel that they are having a direct impact on their environment based on their specific choices. In addition, the more specific you can make the reactivity to the player’s character creation choices (Fallout 1 and 2 did a fantastic job of this, in my opinion), the better. The more a stealth character is given consistent rewards and feedback on their chosen skills and using those skills to solve quests, for example, the more they feel their character choices and their character’s skills truly matter.

Chosing to play a high Charisma+Intelligence character is rewarded with non-violent quest conclusions. That’s the kind of character I like to play.

1951

Maybe I’m missing something - where have they said that talking one’s way out of situations won’t be viable? There’s no question that the single NPC limit will render the pop-star entourage route nonviable (which suggests that Charisma will have substantially less role, yes, since as far as I remember that’s mainly what it did.), but I don’t recall anyone saying anything about having to shoot your way through the whole game.

The low intelligence thing is sad, but yeah, not going to miss it personally. It was hilarious, but it was also a handicap and I’ve never been fond of intentionally handicapping myself in a game.

1952

new preview from XBOX 360 WORLD (XBOX WORLD 360?)…

Glad they’ve changed the lock picking mini-game, another preview said it was reminiscent of Thief’s. Also digging the radio broadcast stuff. Groaned a bit at the “save the town and get a free hut!” thing. Groaned a bit more when they mentioned the interior decoration part. Seems a bit out of place.

1953

1954

Cool, let’s see.

-The field guide quest seems nice, original and good reason to explore.
-"* A few hours of playing only covers about 1% of the game world".
/cross fingers.
-The writer of the preview doens’t understand the word humour:
“* An example of bleak humour: one house contains two skeletons hugging each other on a burnt-out carpet, a couple who died when the bombs fell.”
That’s sad and romantic, but not funny.
-"* Raiders are observed “clearly thinking and plotting before rushing into combat”. I wonder if you can shake them off and hide with stealth if you see raiders incoming that way.

1955

Where are you getting all this from? The crappy charisma translation/misinformation?

[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

1956

Yeah, well maybe Fallout 3 WILL suck in that regard, who knows. No one said or expected it to be the greatest RPG ever made. But you can’t ask one day for gore and violence and the next say “nah, this game will suck if you’re non violent I want to complete the main quest by kissing everyone”. You can ask for choice, but then again, we won’t see until we actually play the damn thing.

1957

For the most part they seem to have addressed my main complaints about Oblivion. As an old Fallout fan, I’m really happy about that. I don’t care for VATS or some of the things they’ve done with the setting, but it’s pretty obvious to me from Emil’s posts and interviews that he has a good idea about the kind of RPG Fallout should be.

1958

A town rewarding you with a shack to live in their community for saving all their lives makes sense, but I agree about the decoration part. Buying a vault theme for your house in a post-apocalyptic supply store? Whaa?

1959

High charisma and intellgence, eh? Well, they don’t call it role-playing for nuthin’.

1960

Zing.