131 réponses à ce sujet

[Kjarista]

I just wish folks would recognize the two different types of roleplay these two games represent, especially in terms of story and characterization. I nearly didn't buy this game, because I generally don't like storytelling games. I still feel restricted when i play DA:O both in terms of where I can go and what I can do. If you want a good story, your character must be restricted. I don't think I've ever been able to find a game with both good story and good sandbox potential since the Ultima series.

[T0paze]

I think the atmosphere in Fallout 3 was superior to that in Dragon Age. Good atmosphere may not make a game interesting, but it's vital for immersion. And vice versa, a good story will maintain the player's interest but will hardly be enough to make him feel an integral part of the game world. Brilliant storytelling can still do that, pulling purely emotional strings (like in Planescape Torment and maybe Arcanum), but Bioware is not THAT great. A lot of things can contribute to atmosphere: lots of game objects, interaction, natural environment, free roaming, NPC behavior and many others. Fallout 3 had a much worse main quest (and much better sidequests), than Dragon Age, but the it did succeed in creating a desolate and depressing post-apocalyptic world that feels very real. In Dragon Age, it is strongly felt that the majority of locations and NPCs exist only to advance the story or to provide some services to the player, and serve no other purpose whatsoever.

Modifié par T0paze, 16 janvier 2010 - 05:03 .

[ArathWoeeye]

Kjarista wrote...

I just wish folks would recognize the two different types of roleplay these two games represent, especially in terms of story and characterization. I nearly didn't buy this game, because I generally don't like storytelling games. I still feel restricted when i play DA:O both in terms of where I can go and what I can do. If you want a good story, your character must be restricted. I don't think I've ever been able to find a game with both good story and good sandbox potential since the Ultima series.

I'd say this about games that do not restrict your character:
In Fallout 1/2, your character wasn't restricted. Every type of character had its own way of dealing stuff.

In Fallout 3, it doesn't MATTER what your character is. Although there are "speech" or "stealth" options, every character can do everything anyway. Maybe not in the first levels, but eventually, unless you deliberately spare points in skills (which doesn't really change much, considering how you can overcome the game plot's final speech challenge with 20~ speech and 4 charisma). Not to mention unkillable characters.

I'm sorry, but Fallout 3 is a bad RPG. It's a decent action game and a decent soapbox in terms of fighting. But that is all there is to it. It uses the legacy of Fallout to give it a good background and good sales.

[Madax132]

todesgotte wrote...

Fallout 3 was a smattering of quests all over the place. Theres a story there but you almost forget what the story and main quest is because of the hundreds and hundreds of stupid, unrelated sidequests. And there was far too much humor and silliness in Fallout3. Its a great game and beautiful atmospheres and such but the depth of the story and character development in Dragon Age just blows Fallout3 out of the water.

I hope your joking, DA origins had virtually no side quests and close to all of them are fetch quests. Not to mention I can't name a single side quest that's taken me over a half hour. Bethesda games are about open world, and believe it or not in an open world there is more to do than just your main objective. If you're complaining about silliness why are you playing a game that has the character that is a major part of the story (alistair) making jokes every two seconds and two chracters that are practically walking piles of comic relief like oghren and zevran, not to mention the goofy conversations your companions have.

[2papercuts]

fallout 3 because theres was more bound to reality, and in a place i was at

[bussinrounds]

ArathWoeeye wrote...

Kjarista wrote...

I just wish folks would recognize the two different types of roleplay these two games represent, especially in terms of story and characterization. I nearly didn't buy this game, because I generally don't like storytelling games. I still feel restricted when i play DA:O both in terms of where I can go and what I can do. If you want a good story, your character must be restricted. I don't think I've ever been able to find a game with both good story and good sandbox potential since the Ultima series.

I'd say this about games that do not restrict your character:
In Fallout 1/2, your character wasn't restricted. Every type of character had its own way of dealing stuff.

In Fallout 3, it doesn't MATTER what your character is. Although there are "speech" or "stealth" options, every character can do everything anyway. Maybe not in the first levels, but eventually, unless you deliberately spare points in skills (which doesn't really change much, considering how you can overcome the game plot's final speech challenge with 20~ speech and 4 charisma). Not to mention unkillable characters.

I'm sorry, but Fallout 3 is a bad RPG. It's a decent action game and a decent soapbox in terms of fighting. But that is all there is to it. It uses the legacy of Fallout to give it a good background and good sales.

It sounds like Obsidan is going back to having more specialised character builds in New Vegas, as your going to only get 1 perk every 2 levels and there will be less skill points to be had. Thank god. I hate having a character that can do everything. That's just bad rpg design. Like everthing leveling up with you in oblivion. I think the Bethesda devs needs some rpg 101 classes.


Here's hoping Obsidan can deliver a better story/characters, as my hopes are really high with Avellone at the helm. Was anything better than Planescape ? EVER ?? If only we can get that setting again !

[Madax132]

Wishpig wrote...

SleeplessInSigil wrote...

Well yes, of course, these two genres are essentially incomparable. but I just had to share the wow. ^^

Thats B.S.

Now comparing Half-Life 2 to Madden, ok, THAT my be incomparable, but comparing two games that are RPG's, focus heavily on story, and focus on the idea of choices... you can freely compare the two.

Especially in terms of atmosphere, being the games are so based on pulling you into the world and enthralling you in their story, you can freely compare the two.

Dragon Age manages to crush Fallout 3 in terms of story (if you ask me), but Fallout 3's landscape really pulls you in. However, Dragon Age's landscape is FAR more varied then the wastes of fallout, so it's a fair tradeoff in my book.

Except in fallout 3 you don't have invisible falls telling you you can't go into water. Aside from that fallout 3 has an enviorment you can actualy interact with and objects you can pick up and move and doesn't look like kids drawings like DA:O

Not to mention DA:O walkable enviorment isn't even a 100th the size of fallouts