131 réponses à ce sujet

[ArathWoeeye]

DarkShadowGod wrote...
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?

If a FPS company will make a game with Bioware, it should be Valve. At least they admit they make FPS games and make them good.

edit: oops, sorry for double post, not sure how I managed it. 

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

[addiction21]

ArathWoeeye wrote...

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.

But cowboys and samurais make everything better...

[jsachun]

ToJKa1 wrote...

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

Yes we all do get bored of it eventually. For me, before boredom Fallout 3 took 4 months DA:O took 1.5 months. Mass Effect took 5 playthroughs. Halflife 2 took 3 playthroughs. If that's an indication of the Game's worth then it has to be Fallout 3 for me. 

[ArathWoeeye]

Hahah yeah.

SAMURAI ARMOR!!!111

Oh well.

[Eragondragonrider]

Fallout 3 was an wonderful game, because there was so many things to distract you from realizing that the story was short plus I didn't fill an real accomplishment when I beat the game. Dragon Age was also a wonderful game I felt more pulled into the story like Final Fantasy series does. I felt I was actually part of the world and felt great when I defeated the game. Fallout 3 took my close to 1 year to beat because I could only play it so long, where with Dragon Age and ME1 i am work on like my 40th play through for both.

[Kjarista]

Abriael_CG wrote...

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

It's unfortunate that folks want to directly compare these two games, as they represent the two different types of RPGs.  DA:O is a stoiry game more than anything else, and the story is the game.  Fallout 3 is a sandbosd game, and the story...the main quest is an OPTIONAL aspect of gameplay.  The bulk of the game is meant to be an area to explore and use theg ame as a backgrop for your own roleplay.  Remove the story from Fallout 3, and sandbox game fans wouldn't even notice.

Again, two different games.  I like DA:O because of the story, but the story is the whole game.  There are no areas to explore.  Remove the story from Dragon Age, and there isn't anything left.  Remove the story from Fallout 3, and we sandbox fans wouldn't even notice.

[jsachun]

Eragondragonrider wrote...

Fallout 3 was an wonderful game, because there was so many things to distract you from realizing that the story was short plus I didn't fill an real accomplishment when I beat the game. Dragon Age was also a wonderful game I felt more pulled into the story like Final Fantasy series does. I felt I was actually part of the world and felt great when I defeated the game. Fallout 3 took my close to 1 year to beat because I could only play it so long, where with Dragon Age and ME1 i am work on like my 40th play through for both.

Actually if you pay attention Fallout saga's storyline is huge. It just not as obivious as the storyline through Dragon Age.

[Dr Bawbag]

Dunno why people feel everything has to be a competition anyhoo. Maybe I'm the odd one out here, but i can see past most flaws in RPG's if the basics work (Hell, i liked Sacred 2 and Fable 2) and don't understand why people have to bash other devs just because they happen to be on another devs website.



I'd rather play the likes of Oblivion and Sacred 2 every day of the week than having to endure an hour playing MW2. But hey, that's just me.

[Chromie]

One thing Bethesda did right with Fallout 3 is the DLC.

THe DLC takes some time and can last awhile

[justair]

I can't really compare the two as they are not in the least bit similiar. I guess the fact that I really enjoyed both is the only similiarity worth noting.  I have no complaints with either game and the money (imo) was well spent.  

T

Modifié par justair, 15 janvier 2010 - 11:49 .

[Noobius_Maximo]

Oh man, my two favorite games of all time.

Better atmosphere: Fallout.

Better game: Dragon Age.

[ArathWoeeye]

Ringo12 wrote...

One thing Bethesda did right with Fallout 3 is the DLC.
THe DLC takes some time and can last awhile

The Pitt was great. Good atmosphere, true to post apocalyptic style, good story.
The uhm... after-the-game-ending DLC was decent. It was basically addition to campaign with a few good scenes.
The past-simulation wasn't bad. But it was just... not fallout. Not post apocalyptic. Very irrelevant game and very stupid imo, how come the store access relates to simulations and how come the brotherhood of steel can't hack or destroy that gate? Just.. nah. Was fun though.
Mothership Zeta was awful. Repetetive combat, awful writing/story, irrelevant setting... just.. out of place.. just bad.
Oh oh, the uhm.. the other one.. that you take the boat.. it was kind of good too, yeah. I liked that. Add it near the Pitt.
Am I missing one?

[jsachun]

Noobius_Maximo wrote...

Oh man, my two favorite games of all time.

Better atmosphere: Fallout.

Better game: Dragon Age.

Yes this is going to be a good a year for Gamers. Mass Effect 2, Fallout New Vegas, Supreme Commander 2 (No Games going to compares to the scale of this), & Bioshock 2.

Anybodyelse think RTS are the only type of game that can be played over & over again.

Chris Taylor  Chris PriestlyTodd Howard

Modifié par jsachun, 16 janvier 2010 - 12:03 .

[jsachun]

ArathWoeeye wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

One thing Bethesda did right with Fallout 3 is the DLC.
THe DLC takes some time and can last awhile

The Pitt was great. Good atmosphere, true to post apocalyptic style, good story.
The uhm... after-the-game-ending DLC was decent. It was basically addition to campaign with a few good scenes.
The past-simulation wasn't bad. But it was just... not fallout. Not post apocalyptic. Very irrelevant game and very stupid imo, how come the store access relates to simulations and how come the brotherhood of steel can't hack or destroy that gate? Just.. nah. Was fun though.
Mothership Zeta was awful. Repetetive combat, awful writing/story, irrelevant setting... just.. out of place.. just bad.
Oh oh, the uhm.. the other one.. that you take the boat.. it was kind of good too, yeah. I liked that. Add it near the Pitt.
Am I missing one?

Operation Anchorage. Linear Style combat based DLC.

[melkathi]

I liked Fallout 3 and it had an amazing atmosphere.

There is a certain "village" you come accross, that is very well done. You arrive and you know something is wrong. I was thinking about that today while entering the "wrong" village in DAO.

Then there are the radio signals. The traces of what had happened before.

In a way Fallout has an advantage though: it takes the familiar to our modern way of living and twists it. Thus every experience touches us more.

The problem is though that it is a Bethesda game: You return to hand in a mission and the npc has fallen through a hole in the geometry and is now dead below ground. Another npc has wandered off and is now somewhere in the open wide world.

And once you get used to using the console to fix all the bugs you are bound to run across, the atmosphere and imersion vanish.

Then there are the scripted events: you clear out the whole building, make sure the npc reaches the building alive, but passing through the door kills him regardless.



I loved FO3 the first few days, but I have not been able to bring myself to play the DLC.

[God_Emperor]

Oh boy another one of these type of threads. What I love most is that people don't realize that what oine person finds engrossing and interesting, another may not. So asking which anything is better than something else is entirely subjective.



Funny, in the Fallout 3 forums I praised Dragon Age versus many that thought it wasn't good so I might as well do the same for Fallout 3 here.



Imo Dragon Age has a much better story, much better developed and dynamic characters, it is more cinematic and a stronger implemented system of choice/consequence. Fallout 3 has more entertaining combat (Yes I like the first person shooter aspect), much richer world design (Much more detailed and better cluttered), the atmosphere is more engrossing (For me anyway, with Fallout I felt as if I was there), the sandbox world allows me to play for much longer (My experience is less linear/restricting about where I can go and I am not limited in the activities I can do or the order I do them in). Naturally I wish I could find the strengths of both to make for the ultimate RPG but neither is a disappointment to me within the genre.



Nonetheless I don't think they can be really compared and quite honestly I think both are truly excellent, even if different, RPG experiences.

[Pocketgb]

While you can spout "apples and oranges" quite appropriately when comparing both games as a whole, it's a bit vital to be comparing both in regards to role-playing. In this sense I consider both to be very good, but DA is completely spot on while FO3 could used a bit more work in character relations. I wasn't able to really care about too many people in FO3, and you never really made what you could call a "friend" or companion in that game, save for a very small few - and even then you'd rather they weren't your ally since the AI pathing is terrible.

As a sidenote, Bethesda DESPERATELY needs new animators. I found the one chief thing always drawing me out of the world of Fallout (and even Oblivion) was how horrendously abstract and stupid my character would run.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 16 janvier 2010 - 12:28 .

[D00GS729]

I can say this: I loved Fallout 3, and it does focus more on exploration and atmosphere than it does story, but I could never say I was honestly happy to explore or take in the atmosphere. Most overworld exploration was either breathtakingly boring, very depressing or incredibly frustrating. Traveling through the mountainous northern area was difficult unless one's character's ability to jump was that of Superman's, and almost everytime I tried to go anywhere in the inner DC area, my path was almost ALWAYS blocked for absolutely no reason (i.e. massive hills of rubble inbetween buildings that were still standing and relatively undamaged). However, both the beginning and the ending of the main quest had me about as invested into a game's story as I've ever been, even if the the amount of work I needed to get those moments were relatively weak. In Dragon Age however, I can honestly say that almost every single moment of my first playthrough I was sucked into the adventures of my elven arcane warrior, and very happy to be so.

[Sir Hawkmoon]

Fallout 3 is better in all aspects then DA:O except the "Talk". So Fallout 3 is a very good game and state of the art. DA:O is a good game but nothing special.

[Elanareon]

I find the atmosphere of FO3 boring. It's a freaking wasteland lol I like the ruined city part though. Everything else its boring.

[addiction21]

Elanareon wrote...

I find the atmosphere of FO3 boring. It's a freaking wasteland lol I like the ruined city part though. Everything else its boring.

You've never been to DC or the surronding counrryside have you?

[legendinthemaking]

Man, I agree with Elanareon. Fallout 3 had some very strong points, but one of the absolute first things I noticed about Dragon Age was the amount of detail, color, and life in the surroundings. What a refreshing contrast to FO3, lol

[Pseron Wyrd]

Bioware makes games for players who like to be told a story; Bethesda makes games for players who like to make up their own stories. I'm glad both companies make the games they do, because sometimes I'm in the mood to be told a story and other times I want to have more control over my gaming experience.

I have never been able to play more than an hour or two of Fallout 3. Didn't like it at all. Between the two I much prefer Dragon Age. But for me Oblivion, when heavily-modded, tops both of them.

Modifié par Pseron Wyrd, 16 janvier 2010 - 12:47 .

[maxernst]

The OP's post did not say Fallout 3 was a better game, it said it had better atmosphere. Dragon Age is a terrific game, in my opinion, a better game that FO3, but...atmospheric? Really? I'm amazed at the lengths people will go to try and prove that Bioware's games are superior to all others in all aspects. DA:O has interactive environments? Umm...other than people, doors and loot, what is there to interact with? It's full of crates and chests and so on that can't be opened, broken or moved. Some rooms in Redcliffe castle don't have a single object that you can interact with.



Some relevant definitions of atmosphere from the web (obviously the non-meterological ones):



a particular environment or surrounding influence; "there was an atmosphere of excitement"

air: a distinctive but intangible quality surrounding a person or thing; "an air of mystery"; "the house had a neglected air"; "an atmosphere of defeat pervaded the candidate's headquarters"; "the place had an aura of romance"



Yes, it has richly developed characters, possibly the best ever in any game. But characters aren't atmosphere. Neither is plot. If anything characters and plot distract from atmosphere because they cause you to focus on them rather than on general impressions. I guarantee if you try looking for movie reviews that describe films as being atmospheric, they won't be fast-paced films with lots of dialog.



The very emptiness of Fallout 3 contributes to its atmosphere. It's wasteland...of course it's empty. So you spend time wandering, looking around at the ruins of civilization. In DA:O, you're never looking around at anything, you spend virtually all your time either in combat or in conversation. Think about your first step out of the Vault into the wasteland...how long did you spend just looking around, trying to get your bearings? You need those quiet moments to really get a feel for the atmosphere.



Besides, I think first person games just have a huge advantage in atmosphere because they're inherently more immersive. In DA:O, you're constantly switching between characters, moving the camera around, sometimes even seeing cut scenes of events you're not even present for. It's much harder to forgot that you're playing a game. With very few exceptions (Sanitarium comes to mind, Fallout 2, maybe Planescape:Torment, at times), I think it's just easier to generate atmosphere when you put the player's eye where his character is. Think of the Thief games or the terrifying System Shock 2.



It's true that the characters in Megaton are pretty thin compared to what we see in DA:O, but I'd say I have a much easier time imagining what it would be like to live in Megaton than in Redcliffe. DA:O pares all extraneous detail which is efficient for moving the story along, but not so great for atmosphere.



Praise DA:O for what it does well, but recognize that there are things that other games do better.

[paranoid_marv]

Fallout 3 does a good job of setting its own atmosphere. The desolate terrain and junkyard cities make me feel terribly alone and forsaken. It's almost depressing but then you talk to one of the quirky NPCs and you can't help but smile. There is a lot of dark comedy to be found in that game.

Dragon Age on the other hand can be gritty and dark at times, but I don't think it manages to maintain that. When I think about the game, the big fights and party builds come to mind. The back of the game case reads, "The Dark Fantasy Epic," but Dragon Age isn't quite there yet. Don't get me wrong, there's some sound writing in this game and although it borrows from other fantasy tales, the plot manages to keep me engaged to the point that I can recall most of it while not playing.

As a whole, I feel Dragon Age is the better game. Fallout 3 isn't terrible but it is a tad overrated(Oblivion takes the overrated cake).