2287 réponses à ce sujet

[naughty99]

lolfanboi wrote...

I liked Fallout 3 better, but Bethesda still did a great job.

After growing accustomed to hardcore mode in FNV, along with some mods that make it "harder" core, FO3 is no longer enjoyable. Are there some FO3 mods that add hunger, thirst, sleep deprivation?   

[Romantiq]

naughty99 wrote...

lolfanboi wrote...

I liked Fallout 3 better, but Bethesda still did a great job.

After growing accustomed to hardcore mode in FNV, along with some mods that make it "harder" core, FO3 is no longer enjoyable. Are there some FO3 mods that add hunger, thirst, sleep deprivation?   

I couldnt go back to FO3 after New Vegas...My combination of mods for NV is amazing and I cant find the same ones for FO3, plus i find NV a lot more stable. I still love Fallout 3 but NV really improved on RPG. Hardcore mode has really helped with that too.

Modifié par Romantiq, 04 mai 2011 - 11:41 .

[NKKKK]

monkeycamoran wrote...

Who would've thought someone will make game content about a scorched Mormon.

Dont worry, the LDS are bros. 

[Addai]

Romantiq wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

lolfanboi wrote...

I liked Fallout 3 better, but Bethesda still did a great job.

After growing accustomed to hardcore mode in FNV, along with some mods that make it "harder" core, FO3 is no longer enjoyable. Are there some FO3 mods that add hunger, thirst, sleep deprivation?   

I couldnt go back to FO3 after New Vegas...My combination of mods for NV is amazing and I cant find the same ones for FO3, plus i find NV a lot more stable. I still love Fallout 3 but NV really improved on RPG. Hardcore mode has really helped with that too.

Whatever gamer gene that makes things like hardcore mode enjoyable, I haven't got it.  So I much, much prefer FO3.  It has more humor and life, the quests are more fun.  I wish Charon would talk to me, that's all. 

[Rockworm503]

Jonp382 wrote...

Sparroww wrote...

Jonp382 wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

If you found Point Lookout boring there is no hope for you.
The best part of Fallout 3 easily came from that DLC.

I think Point Lookout is a perfect demonstration of what not to do in an RPG. Tons of wandering and terrible combat in a vast area of nothing but filler quests with a few uninformed decisions for the player character to make for good measure.

I would've thought this describes Fallout pretty well.

The main game of Fallout 3 has lots of wandering and terrible combat(most RPGs have terrible combat imo), but it doesn't emphasize the terrible combat. There's lots of interesting locations and quests to do. You get to actually make meaningful decisions(to your character) instead of finishing a covert Chinese mission to blow up a submarine 200 years after it was supposed to for some bizarre reason. And there's reason to care about areas in the Capital Wasteland and some of it's people. I don't see any reason to care about Point Lookout, unless you like idiots and trashpiles.

Wierd its like we're playing two different games here.  Our experiences of Point Lookout are so extreme.
Then again I don't hate fallout like you seem to.

[casedawgz]

I tried to play FO3 after FNV and I missed all of my new guns and the Aim Down the Sights feature too much to enjoy myself.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Romantiq wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

lolfanboi wrote...

I liked Fallout 3 better, but Bethesda still did a great job.

After growing accustomed to hardcore mode in FNV, along with some mods that make it "harder" core, FO3 is no longer enjoyable. Are there some FO3 mods that add hunger, thirst, sleep deprivation?   

I couldnt go back to FO3 after New Vegas...My combination of mods for NV is amazing and I cant find the same ones for FO3, plus i find NV a lot more stable. I still love Fallout 3 but NV really improved on RPG. Hardcore mode has really helped with that too.

+1.

Fallout 3 for me was the better sandbox game, but NV just seemed like a better RPG. In almost all ways. Fallout 3 had it's moments, but it didn't grip me or force me to consider my choices like FNV did. It's also better in gameplay. They took the foundation of Fallout 3's gameplay and just added, tweaked and made better.

It also felt more immersive for me. I don't think Fallout 3 gave me a "oh God, no way....<become melancholy for the next 10 minutes>" type moment like I had when I finished Vault 11.

That's what freaking Fallout is to me, right there. Experiences like that.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 mai 2011 - 05:30 .

[Romantiq]

Yeah Vault 11 got me thinking. I hope they somehow expand on that story and tell us what happened to the one that survived it. Fallout 3 did have a lot of humor. One thing I really missed in NV was a bunch of bossy kids (like the ones in the mines eating fungi to survive) and ghoul cities. =P

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol, I didn't really like that. I mean Underworld was pretty cool, I miss that, but Little Lamplight didn't sit well with me...

I mean, if all the kids are sent away when they get old, where do all the kids come from?



I think that's one of the things that New Vegas did much better than Fallout 3. There was still a lot of wacky stuff, but when you thought about it, it kinda made sense, or it was at least believable. I had trouble with that in some of Fallout 3. I mean, it was there and it was kooky but it was also like "I can't wrap my head at how this is possible."

Whereas in Vegas it was like "yeah, this is still off the wall silly, but I can see how it could happen".

Like, Fallout 3 had a lot of really cool ideas and funny stuff, but there was no logic holding it together...

For example, clean water. If you can have a Mr. Handy who gives you Pure Water everyday, couldn't you just open the bugger up and reverse engineer a portable filtering system? You don't need to clean out the whole basin. Just a portable filter for each Wastelander. The BoS would be happy to help, reverse engineering robots is something they're good at.

It was hard to get involved in the main story because of that. Plus, I wanted to butcher Dad. Liam Neeson is cool and all, but as a character, Dad pissed me off and I just wanted to Power Bro Fist his face.

As for Vault 11, I get the feeling that the last survivor is No-Bark Noonan. It's not explicitly stated or anything, but No Bark is pretty old, no one knows his real name, he's clearly insane (possible trauma) and most importantly, they have the same voice. Could just be a lack of voice actors to go around though.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 mai 2011 - 06:04 .

[Romantiq]

Yeah stuff in NV makes sense more or less unlike certain settlements in F3.
Having those kids around made absolutely ZERO sense since you find the audio tapes of one of the teacher speaking about the school trip. Overall what pissed me off about it was a lot of unsettled areas but then again, Washington got hit harder than Nevada where House destroyed some of the missiles.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@Romantiq
I'm playing FO3 for 2 several days and I've reached to Vault 87. those Kids seem an outrage!
and I don't think anyone could survive in Washington D.C ...
New Vegas actually makes sense. Those gangs and factions and New Vegas with clean water ... there is hope to be alive there.

Modifié par Garbage Master, 05 mai 2011 - 10:56 .

[Jonp382]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Then again I don't hate fallout like you seem to.

I never said I hate Fallout. Quite the opposite, I'm really enjoying Fallout 3. A very good game. I'm tempted to say it's better than Dragon Age: Origins, but I haven't finished it yet. It's only the DLCs that I've played so far that are really low quality.(Off the top of my head)

I suspect that I will enjoy New Vegas even more, since it has some of the game industry's best writers on the development team. Just hope the DLC is worth the money.(40 USD for all the DLC)

[HoonDing]

After all the insanity in Fallout 2, it's hard to criticize Fallout 3 about lack of internal logic.

mrcrusty wrote...

Lol, I didn't really like that. I mean Underworld was pretty cool, I miss that, but Little Lamplight didn't sit well with me...

I mean, if all the kids are sent away when they get old, where do all the kids come from?

I imagine they gather orphans from the Wasteland. They seem to send out scouts looking for new kids, since there were captured Lamplighters in Paradise Falls. Not to mention, the teens leaving Lamplight would also send along any orphans they'd come across.

I'm now also reminded of enslaving that cute little girl... Princess? That was pretty evil with a capital E.

Modifié par virumor, 05 mai 2011 - 01:24 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol, I can live with a lot of the stuff in Fallout 2. I guess I'm not a stickler for keeping to the setting as long as it's done well and even adds to the game. In Fallout 3, it felt to me like an oversight or a plothole. Whereas in Fallout 2, it just felt as if the guys at Black Isle were high at the time.

I still didn't like the main story though. It painted a picture of a society that was desperate for new life. It was tainted by the Great War, small societies forming but nothing to unite them. No means of production, everyone was living on borrowed time. That's a great setting.

But if said society survives only by making do and living off the scraps of the Old World, why would they not just use smaller scale water filters instead of dooming the CW with irradiated water for decades because they couldn't do the whole thing at once?

Working for years on the large scale, failing, then going "well nothing can be done" sounds really stupid from a man of science when he can do it fine on the smaller scale. The tests say that small scale testing was working fine. Well, why not keep it small scale and mass produce the technology?

You could probably reverse engineer Mr. Handys and Gustys to help the job since they have internal water filters too.

Either distribute the filtration device or setup a way to continuously purify the water. That makes sense to me. Not ditching the project, running into a Vault for almost 2 decades, then hitting a mid life crisis.

Also, again. I wanted to do this:



to this:



with this:



But Fallout 3 is a great fun game overall. The Republic of Dave stuff was funny, I loved the Tenpenny quests, Outcasts were cool, loved Broken Steel DLC, lots of the game was pretty good, etc etc.

I just have to bleh at a lot of the logic behind some things.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 mai 2011 - 02:17 .

[HoonDing]

mrcrusty wrote...

Well, why not keep it small scale and mass produce the technology?

Lack of resources? Not to mention, the Brotherhood wouldn't stay around that long to protect them.

The only entities on the East Coast capable of mass production, would be the Pitt and the Commonwealth.

Modifié par virumor, 05 mai 2011 - 02:43 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Mass produce was probably the wrong term, but they had already built the purifier and had it working in small scale tests. This obviously means that they had multiple small purifiers as prototypes. So not mass produced, but replication is possible. Combined with reverse engineering Mr. Handy robots (who is able to purify your water), they could have at least something. There wasn't even a huge need to do the research at the Memorial.

I'd think the Brotherhood would be interested in salvaging robots and tech, and the replication of the small purifiers could've been completed at either Rivet City or the Citadel. The point I'm getting at is why did they just give up when they couldn't get the whole thing when it's clear that they had the ability to get things working on a small scale.

Clean water for Rivet City and/or Megaton would've easily been possible. Also, James could've taken a look at how the water chip works in Vault 101.

I dunno, maybe it's just me, I just couldn't connect with the main story at all in Fallout 3. Whenever they mentioned Project Purity I was just like "are you serious? there is a better way to go about this, guys..."

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 mai 2011 - 03:09 .

[Dreadstruck]

And it doesn't make a sense too. in F3, it's like 200 years after the war and it looks like the bombs fell just yesterday.

C'mon Bethesda, West Coast was already farming in Fallout 1 with the constant mutant threat too!

[naughty99]

Avalla'ch wrote...

And it doesn't make a sense too. in F3, it's like 200 years after the war and it looks like the bombs fell just yesterday.

C'mon Bethesda, West Coast was already farming in Fallout 1 with the constant mutant threat too!

For me part of the appeal of the Fallout world is the lack of rebuilding.

I don't think it would be as fun to play a game set exclusively in an area with advanced technology and civilized society controlled by, say, NCR or BoS.

I like the idea that the world following the war has entered a sort of Dark Age, where it would take these small tribal groups hundreds or perhaps thousands of years to get back to the same level of tech.

One of my favorite books is A Canticle for Leibowitz, in which the world has reverted to a sort of feudal society for several hundred years following a nuclear holocaust.

Modifié par naughty99, 05 mai 2011 - 04:21 .

[Addai]

Jonp382 wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Then again I don't hate fallout like you seem to.

I never said I hate Fallout. Quite the opposite, I'm really enjoying Fallout 3. A very good game. I'm tempted to say it's better than Dragon Age: Origins, but I haven't finished it yet. It's only the DLCs that I've played so far that are really low quality.(Off the top of my head)

I suspect that I will enjoy New Vegas even more, since it has some of the game industry's best writers on the development team. Just hope the DLC is worth the money.(40 USD for all the DLC)

I haven't played Point Lookout yet, but I've enjoyed all the other FO3 DLCs a lot.  I had forgotten, having put the game down for eons to play Origins, what a decent sized, quality DLC is like, then went back to Fallout recently and played Mothership Zeta for the first time.  Operation: Anchorage is my favorite and not many like it, so YM definitely MV.

FNV, story-wise, was extremely lacking IMO.  I could care less who runs Vegas.  The final battle was so underwhelming I had to force myself to play through it.  I'm not sure why people tout the writing over Fallout 3's.

About the Lamplight kids- I assumed they were orphans that the kids picked up on their scavenging trips.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

naughty99 wrote...

For me part of the appeal of the Fallout world is the lack of rebuilding.

I don't think it would be as fun to play a game set exclusively in an area with advanced technology and civilized society controlled by, say, NCR or BoS.

I like the idea that the world following the war has entered a sort of Dark Age, where it would take these small tribal groups hundreds or perhaps thousands of years to get back to the same level of tech.

One of my favorite books is A Canticle for Leibowitz, in which the world has reverted to a sort of feudal society for several hundred years following a nuclear holocaust.

Ironic, because the entire premise of the Fallout series is the rebuilding of human society.

What you're describing is actually what takes place in Fallout 1/2 (mostly 1). Factions like the BoS and Enclave are actually descendants of US Army deserters and certain U.S government & Miltiary Industry officials, respectively. We don't see society rebuild past small communities for quite a while. And the ones that do, had help.

New Vegas (and Fallout 3) is set 200+ years after the War. The first two games chronicle not only the personal journey of the VD and CO, but more importantly, explore the societies and communities that form as a result of the War. In 3, well, I find 3 a little lacking on the logic. So I'll leave that alone.

But New Vegas isn't post-apocalypse anymore. It's post-post-apocalypse. It's not about rebuilding sections of human society, that's done. It's about examining these societies, how they formed and how their various ideologies match up with your own. Based on those goals and visions, you decide the fate of New Vegas and the Mojave according to what you believe is best for the smaller communities and society as a whole, with expected and unexpected results.

Though of course, that's an abstract reading of the narrative. It's implementation, particularly Caesar's Legion, wasn't done very well. But it's a faithful sequel to Fallout 2 imo.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 mai 2011 - 04:24 .

[Sparrow44]

Addai67 wrote...

I haven't played Point Lookout yet, but I've enjoyed all the other FO3 DLCs a lot.  I had forgotten, having put the game down for eons to play Origins, what a decent sized, quality DLC is like, then went back to Fallout recently and played Mothership Zeta for the first time.  Operation: Anchorage is my favorite and not many like it, so YM definitely MV.

FNV, story-wise, was extremely lacking IMO.  I could care less who runs Vegas.  The final battle was so underwhelming I had to force myself to play through it.  I'm not sure why people tout the writing over Fallout 3's.

About the Lamplight kids- I assumed they were orphans that the kids picked up on their scavenging trips.

O:A I actually enjoyed more than most, though the main highlight was the gear you got at the end, Mothership Zeta bored me to tears and Point Lookout did feel like a decent expansion as did Broken Steel.

As for New Vegas I enjoyed the story a lot more than 3, more because I got hyped up for NV before it came out although I personally find both games fairly equal in terms of gameplay.

[Sigma Tauri]

mrcrusty wrote...
Ironic, because the entire premise of the Fallout series is the rebuilding of human society.

Pretty much.

"And from the ashes of nuclear devestation, a new civilization would struggle to arise." - Fallout 1 introduction.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 05 mai 2011 - 04:49 .

[naughty99]

Sparroww wrote...
O:A I actually enjoyed more than most, though the main highlight was the gear you got at the end, Mothership Zeta bored me to tears and Point Lookout did feel like a decent expansion as did Broken Steel.

As for New Vegas I enjoyed the story a lot more than 3, more because I got hyped up for NV before it came out although I personally find both games fairly equal in terms of gameplay.

I also found Mothership Zeta boring. I liked The Pitt and Broken Steel the most. Operation Anchorage was also fun.

Point Lookout was interesting and some of the Hillbilly creatures were fun, etc. but the art direction and style didn't feel like it fit with the rest of the game. I did like that it had a lot of content and was a large area to explore, so my feelings were a bit mixed.

Looking forward to The Lonesome Road and Honest Hearts. 

[Dreadstruck]

naughty99 wrote...

For me part of the appeal of the Fallout world is the lack of rebuilding.
.

Tim Cain's(creator of Fallout) words:
"My idea is explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma rifle."

The whole concept *was* supposed to be about rebuilding, how will the civilization progress etc.
This is pretty much where I think Bethsoft missed the spot with the endless limbo of doom'n'gloom.

Ironic, because the entire premise of the Fallout series is the rebuilding of human society.

What
you're describing is actually what takes place in Fallout 1/2 (mostly
1). Factions like the BoS and Enclave are actually descendants of US
Army deserters and certain U.S government & Miltiary Industry
officials, respectively. We don't see society rebuild past small
communities for quite a while. And the ones that do, had help.

New
Vegas (and Fallout 3) is set 200+ years after the War. The first two
games chronicle not only the personal journey of the VD and CO, but more
importantly, explore the societies and communities that form as a
result of the War. In 3, well, I find 3 a little lacking on the logic.
So I'll leave that alone.

But New Vegas isn't post-apocalypse
anymore. It's post-post-apocalypse. It's not about rebuilding sections
of human society, that's done. It's about examining these societies, how
they formed and how their various ideologies match up with your own.
Based on those goals and visions, you decide the fate of New Vegas and
the Mojave according to what you believe is best for the smaller
communities and society as a whole, with expected and unexpected
results.

Though of course, that's an abstract reading of the
narrative. It's implementation, particularly Caesar's Legion, wasn't
done very well. But it's a faithful sequel to Fallout 2 imo.

Basicly this.

Modifié par Avalla'ch, 05 mai 2011 - 05:36 .

[Addai]

Both games treated the rebuilding of civilization in one fashion or another. FO3 with water supply, though in a sort of fantastical "a wizard did it" way. It's cheap that the FEV release doesn't change things like it's supposed to. That's why I don't like Broken Steel- it was clearly meant to end with the restart of Project Purity.

FNV has more in the way of agriculture and society. The problem is, I didn't care about any of the factions. The Courier is a wide-open character, so I suppose you can RP a reason to care. Like I wanted to RP a Great Khan drug dealer character, but no faction recognizes the Courier as having any background, so it kills the RP to have them talking to you like you just dropped in from a different planet.

Modifié par Addai67, 05 mai 2011 - 05:48 .