131 réponses à ce sujet

[Haranalee]

Dragon Age wins by a mile, even though I thought very highly of Fallout3. Nobody does better than Bioware

[Dragoon001]

Stanley Woo wrote...

While I found Fallout 3 creepier and darker, I thought Dragon Age had far more colour, was brighter, and suited its genre more. There were more variations to places in Dragon Age, while in Fallout 3, everything was varying shades of grey. Even places like Megaton had an overly complex layout without really having any variation in its atmosphere. Perhaps this was intentional, since Fallout 3 is all about traveling through and around destroyed cities.

Is that not also a cultural issue? Europeans prefer in medieval setting games more darker and colder colors for a gritty atmosphere, while Americans tend more to like you said color and brighter colors.
For me sometime already too close to cartoon looking. (Maybe because this the MMO Old Republic looks like a cartoon teen game to me. Although I love the setting.)
Maybe the reason is that the remains of the medieval architecture are still around us in real, while you know the medieval only from movies and books.

Modifié par Dragoon001, 15 janvier 2010 - 09:29 .

[Sup3rBill]

I thought Fallout 3 was a great game until I ran in the level 20 cap after wasting 3 (or was it 4) perk upgrades to boosting the amount of experience the player gains. Excuse me, but what is the point in offering the player useless perks to achieve a low level CAP in a game where character development is centered around the perks themselves. When I hit that wall the whole game was ruined for me and I haven't touched it since. Fallout 3 was nothing but a sandbox of bad design decisions.

[addiction21]

Dragoon001 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

While I found Fallout 3 creepier and darker, I thought Dragon Age had far more colour, was brighter, and suited its genre more. There were more variations to places in Dragon Age, while in Fallout 3, everything was varying shades of grey. Even places like Megaton had an overly complex layout without really having any variation in its atmosphere. Perhaps this was intentional, since Fallout 3 is all about traveling through and around destroyed cities.

Is that not also a cultural issue? Europeans prefer in medieval setting games more darker and colder colors for a gritty atmosphere, while Americans tend more to like you said color and brighter colors.
For me sometime already too close to cartoon looking. (Maybe because this the MMO Old Republic looks like a cartoon teen game to me. Although I love the setting.)
Maybe the reason is that the remains of the medieval architecture are still around us in real, while you know the medieval only from movies and books.

Not to be rude but holy generalzation batman.  Just like everbody on the other side of the pond we are each different. On top of that do not ever mistake Americans for Canadians. It is like when someone mistakes a Scott for an Irish person. Blood will be shed...

Modifié par addiction21, 15 janvier 2010 - 09:35 .

[StaticSilence]

I loved both but I'm getting way more replay enjoyment out of DA:O. which is funny, considering FO3 has random enemy spawns and DA:O the enemy count is finite.



What I found about FO3 is that it always feels like you have to resort to a guns based character. rifles, lasers, and heavy weapons. always. melee was rather weak, and companions were so few and far between you couldn't really hire people to protect you if you were a non- heavy combatant.



It all comes down to the story and the character writing. Bioware is just way better at it than Bethesda. But consider Bioware is a master with years and years of experience- so I'm not suprised.

[bobnolan]

No doubt Bioware owns when it comes to characters, story, and character development, but

Butch > any Bioware character.

You mess you with the tunnels snakes, and you get the fangs.

Modifié par bobnolan, 15 janvier 2010 - 10:08 .

[Ryldaun]

Fallout 3 was a nice experience, i liked the atmosphere, the humor, exploring.. sadly it got dull halfway through.

[NKKKK]

Stanley Woo wrote...

While I found Fallout 3 creepier and darker, I thought Dragon Age had far more colour, was brighter, and suited its genre more. There were more variations to places in Dragon Age, while in Fallout 3, everything was varying shades of grey. Even places like Megaton had an overly complex layout without really having any variation in its atmosphere. Perhaps this was intentional, since Fallout 3 is all about traveling through and around destroyed cities.

Stanley you should play the DLC's point look out and mothership Zeta, really different than the rest of the game.

[Dr Bawbag]

I thought FO3 was better simply because I'm not a huge fan of linear games in this day and age. With FO3 you were never sure when some bear or rad scorp was about to pounce on you from behind. I also remember the first time i visited Old Olney, i just wasn't prepared for what happened next and that's something i can say I have never once experienced playing DA first time through.

Modifié par Dr Bawbag, 15 janvier 2010 - 10:40 .

[Abriael_CG]

Dr Bawbag wrote...

I thought FO3 was better simply because I'm not a huge fan of linear games in this day and age.

Again, you might want to review your definition of "linear" game, because DA:O does not fit it.

[Sloimpreza]

Fallout3 was really grey and brown and all the internal areas were more metal or stone - no real variety to look. It was very boring doing any sort of long distance travel - the point was to go thru a wasteland so yes that matched the theme.

Dragon Age is meant to feel bleak I guess but not desolate. The world is very much alive although under threat. Fallout3, the world is dead with pockets of life. Also being a free roaming game, it offers a different kind of experience gameplay wise compare to Dragon Age. In Dragon Age you are moving from unique location to unique location so you do not feel the vastness of the land like you would in a free roaming environment.



If you had to compare I think you really should compare Oblivion as it was a bit closer to Dragon Age in terms on setting. Oblivion was a lot more colorful with diverse natural settings like plains, forests, swamps, frosted mountains, towns, ruins, castles and dungeons. Oblivion did not have such a dark theme as Dragon Age. The gates kind have only recently opened and the impact of that is not felt yet since the time frame for Oblivion would logically be only a few days max to a month. Dragon Age happened in a span of about a year so the impact is different. Oblivion also had racial tensions but not in the forefront of the setting or story, they would recognize your race but not really a big impact on the situation.

[Dr Bawbag]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Dr Bawbag wrote...

I thought FO3 was better simply because I'm not a huge fan of linear games in this day and age.

Again, you might want to review your definition of "linear" game, because DA:O does not fit it.

I consider it linear compared to the RPG's I've played recently and if you think diffrently, then that's your prerogative.

[jsachun]

Rated Best Rpg of the Decade & Second Best Computer Game of the Decade, behind Half Life 2. Personally I thought Fallout 3 was a lot better than Half Life 2, but apparently the exprience can be quite terrible for owners of relatively low end PC. Yes the atmosphere is fantastic, the thrill and suspense during dungeon crawl in Fallout 3 is heart ponuding. I think DA lacks the true feeling of terror of the blight in gameplay. Perhaps its becuase they have made the Grey wardens something beyond a mere Mortal and we all feel very protected in the world of blight or they have not used the appropriate music to heighten the senses in scenes (which has been done in Fallout 3 brilliantly).  

Modifié par jsachun, 15 janvier 2010 - 11:02 .

[Decho the Dolphin]

Vae_Victis wrote...
If post-apocalyptic immersion is your thing the atmosphere of S.T.A.L.K.E.R blows Fallout 3 out of the water

This, that game scares the crap out of me, especially with the '09 completer mod (search moddb), which revamps the graphics. That game is amazing. On topic: Fallout 3 is one of my favourite games ever, but the characters and story of dragon age destroy those of Fallout 3, though that is possibly better for more esoteric roleplay as there are more options.

[xgiovedi]

I consider DA:O linear because you can only travel to certain "marked" points on your map. Sure, you can go back and forth, but you still have fixed points. You cannot make your character actually run from Lothering to Redcliffe and possibly battle danger on the way. Which fits it better, since it makes the DA:O feel like it took place over 1-2 years. (People tell you traveling to one city to another may take a day or weeks).



But with FO3, you could run anywhere (and you had to until you unlocked "Fast Travel"), or non-linear/sandbox. You might be running to Rivet city and come across some tiny hut (Agatha) or random empty houses destroyed from the blast.

[StaticSilence]

Actually DA:O is heavily scripted. even the "chance" encounters and ambushes you experience while traveling are triggers based on where you are in the plot.



That being said, I still love the game.

[Dr Bawbag]

Decho the Dolphin wrote...

Vae_Victis wrote...
If post-apocalyptic immersion is your thing the atmosphere of S.T.A.L.K.E.R blows Fallout 3 out of the water

This, that game scares the crap out of me, especially with the '09 completer mod (search moddb), which revamps the graphics. That game is amazing. On topic: Fallout 3 is one of my favourite games ever, but the characters and story of dragon age destroy those of Fallout 3, though that is possibly better for more esoteric roleplay as there are more options.

That's the thing, though, Bethesda games aren't about "The story", they never have been, they're more about the player.  People that buy a Beth game thinking they're in for an epic story adventure are always gonna be disappointed.  It amazes me the amount of people that slate Oblivion on the basis that the story sucks.  Aye the actual story sucks donkey balls, but so did Morrowind's and Daggerfall's, yet we all know how epic those games were.  Bioware do stories, Beth let you off the leash to do what you want.

Modifié par Dr Bawbag, 15 janvier 2010 - 11:02 .

[ArathWoeeye]

Kinda depends on what you mean by atmosphere.
WARNING: SPOILERS FOR FALLOUT 3

If you mean how much "part of it" you can feel when you walk around:

Fallout 3 has the advantage of having a first person camera, being a one-toon game (companions are just meat shields following you, can't really count them) and a camera that is meant for it. Not only that, but graphics are pretty much the only thing Fallout3 has to offer, so they worked a lot on that obviously. So yeah, it does feel very "inside".

Dragon Age is a party game, so the camera doesn't take you right into the atmosphere as Fallout 3 does.

HOWEVER.
If you don't just walk around and actually play the game, Dragon Age wins with no competition at all:
Fallout 3:
*Characters are shallow and don't feel realistic.
*Dialogues are badly written.
*The post-apocalyptic world is interpreted as a fantasy world (Brotherhood=paladins, lawful good. ghouls=goblin type creatures. super mutants=orc/ogre/giant types, with behemoths being the ultimate proof to that).
*Although there are lots happening around, there are very few quests, which prevent you from actually being a part of the world. For example: You see the files on Megaton bar-owners computer, but you can't talk anyone about them. So it feels like there is a glass between you and the world. You see it, but you can't interact it.
*Most "scenes" are set up very, very, very, very badly. (like when your father dies)

Dragon Age:
*Characters are deep. All have their own doubts, dilemmas, ideas, pasts and they reflect it in their conversations.
*Dialogues are well-written.
*The world gives you something of its own. Not another D&D clone. It has its own interpretion and gives a completeness feel, seeing how many open ends tie in time.
*There are lots of quests and even though we have seen this world for the first time; even if you don't read codex entries and just do the quests, you get to know the world since you have interacted it so very much.
*Scenes are set up much better. There are also a few ones that even outshine the general quality (like the human noble origin ending)

Another point I'd like to add is player-character realism:
Fallout 3 starts very, very good. Childhood, the baby book.. Brilliant. But when you play the game you notice a few things:
*You get nugloads of skill points compared to how many skills there are and the cap.
*You get one perk per level and the list mostly consists of skill/stat upgrades.
*Since the skill scope isn't wide, most skills are useful even at low levels.
*Stats aren't too effective.
*You can get bobbleheads to boost skills and stats.
...which means that you get a character that never really sucks at anything and eventually can become a character that does everything. Also, even though there is a karma system, it works like a fantasy game where there are good and evil. Yes, old Fallout games had karma too, but it wasn't about how good or evil you behaved. It was about how you treated people. Fallout 3 just drops your karma with every spoon you steal because "it's wrong". Yeah, right. There goes the post-apocalyptic atmosphere.

In terms of living in the world, not just walking around, Fallout 1-2 felt much more like a post apocalyptic game and much more realistic and their graphics are nowhere comparable, technology-wise.

Fallout 3 has great eye candy. It has a big shiny shell but it is mostly empty inside. That is why you love the game the most when you first start it and you like it the least when you are done with it. If you JUST explore around and kills stuff, it's great. But that can only work so far.

Modifié par ArathWoeeye, 15 janvier 2010 - 11:22 .

[Frozenmojo]

fo2 > fo3 when it comes to immersion and atmospher. Plus it has Michael Dorn voice acting! And New Reno alone in fo2 has probably more quests than the entire fo3 game and probably more npcs too. That's what I call ****** poor.

Anyway I played both games heavily. And Oblivion and Morrowind and all the bioware games too. And well, I swore if beth screwed up one of my favorite settings. I'd kick Todd Howard hard in the nuts. Sadly I haven't made the funds to make the trip to washington yet.

I just hope that Obsidian can make fallout good again. More sex drugs and bloody violence. Oh and melee and hand to hand combat that doesn't suck would be nice too. And groin aim.

Modifié par Frozenmojo, 15 janvier 2010 - 11:14 .

[jsachun]

Side quests in Dragon Age is almost as lame as the side quests in Mass effect. It feels like your in the same place doing the same thing over & over again, when really the game is trying to achieve something entirely different.

[Ryldaun]

@ArathWoeeye

well said, had a grin about the interpreted as fantasy setting, never thought about it like this but your right.

[DarkShadowGod]

It's hard for me to choose one of them since I have 200+ hours on fallout (multiple characters of course) and I am on my third DA playthrough. I love the atmosphere of F3, and the fact that early in the game you feel very vulnerable to anything, and the world really feels post-apocalyptic. And while I have played F1 & F2 I think that Bethesda's FPS gameplay suits better the setting than F1 & F2 turn based system. Now, I love DA for it's characters and the great story, so I try to enjoy them both as best as I can.

But now for a second imagine that Beth and Bioware make a game together, with Bethesda making the world and Bioware writing the story and the characters wouldn't that be the most amazing game ever?

Modifié par DarkShadowGod, 15 janvier 2010 - 11:14 .

[ArathWoeeye]

Ryldaun wrote...

@ArathWoeeye
well said, had a grin about the interpreted as fantasy setting, never thought about it like this but your right.

I'll help you with your grin. There are magic items in Fo3.
A few examples:
Fantasy: Robes of the Alchemist = +5 alchemy
                 Robe of the Acolyte=+5 healing
Fallout 3: Scientist outfit=+5 science
                  Vault outfit=+5 Repair

I mean yeah, some of them makes sense but making a habit of it is just totally against the atmosphere.

[ToJKa1]

BioWare is better at story telling, no question, but it's the open world "do what you want" "go anywhere" thing in Bethesda's games that makes come back to them, which is why i'm currently fighting with my Oblivion's mod load order. Personally, i prefer Oblivion over Fallout 3, i prefer the fantasy world of Oblivion over the dead and mutated wasteland, but both of them are great games that i see myself playing for a long while still.

Dragon Age on the other hand tells a story and does it great, but there are only so many variations to the story depending on your decisions, and enemies are always the same and in same places. Playing with different party combinations keeps it fresh for a while, but that won't last forever either. It's like Doom 3, fun for a few playtroughs, but then you know everything that happens, it gets boring and ToJKa returns to Oblivion, and finds another random cave or ruin that he never knew was there

In any case, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Dragon Age have stolen more hours of my life than i care to admit

[ArathWoeeye]

PS: Before anyone says anything

I have completed fo1, fo2 numerous times. I have completed Fo3 twice but played it with numerous characters without completing (my stomach can't take the ending again) and played all the DLC.

And I must admit the Pitt was very successful. My favorite DLC and I think it's the true to the post apocalyptic setting mostly. Shame that they released the worst game content ever as well: Mothership Zeta.