Fucking Fallout

[~Void~]

Wow, so I just finished the main quest of Fallout 3 on the PS3, and realized that once I finished, there is NO WAY TO CONTINUE. What the FUCK is this shit? There is so much content in the game, it's a FREE ROAM RPG... and yet there is an ENDING? Oblivion let you continue after you finished the main quest.

I'm so disappointed right now. I had a full suit of hazmat armor, I had the knight power armor, and I had a set of fully-repaired Tesla armor. I also had a gatling laser and a few other nice toys... and a karma of somewhere around +1000. I wanted to continue at least to level 20 (I was level 18), otherwise what the hell is the point of all those level 30 perks? -.-'

Honestly, this is bullshit, and I'm currently downloading the PC version just so I can install a mod that lets me continue, and this download is going to take days... it's 8GB -.-'

 

[Mechanical Man]

See? Play games on PC instead

 

[~Void~]

It's more fun on a console imo. More immersion, better graphics capabilities, and no temptations to mod/cheat.

 

[Eleandor]

Use the 300+ € on a good graphics card perhaps?

 

[~Void~]

Not the same. No matter what godlike computer you can come up with (unless you spend like 10k), you can't get one that matches the graphics and memory capacities of a PS3, simply because the PS3 is MADE for games and not much else. I've tried with GTA 4, and even my 360 has better performance than a brand-new $4000 computer that my friend plays it on, even though the card is almost 3 years older.

 

[Gilles]

No Void. A computer will always have superior graphic capabilities. GTA IV looked much better on the computer, I have no idea what you are talking about. My $1000 computer blows my 360 out of the water.

Graphics you say? How can a three year old graphics processor compare to a few month old graphics processor? It doesn't. It's the same with "memory capacities", whatever those are.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

GTA IV on pc is abe to have 2x the quality of textures that it has on a console. It's not because the pc is better but GTA IV for pc was made like thay by rockstar ^^

And i can't run it on high -.-

 

[Belgarath]

Yeah, computer is more powerful, alright. A lot better in graphics, for example, I have never seen a single 360 game, except (kind of) Halo 3, with AA. :|
Also, LOL, FO3's story is shit.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Just wait for the "Broken Steel" DLC. Oh that's right, I forgot it's not for the PS3


[/fanboyism]

 

[Tleno]

Hahaha! You can't run away from the true: PC rules (Like tunel snakes)!
Well, you could wait for broken stell expansion.

And if you are downloading that mod, maybe you should also download "unique weapons" to get gatling plazma?

Damn, I am helping to the duck...

 

[Mechanical Man]

It's more fun on a console imo. More immersion, better graphics capabilities, and no temptations to mod/cheat.

Thats the biggest advantage playing it on comp. Mods greatly increase the time you spend with a game.

 

[Tleno]

They are like expansion packs, but there are millions of them and you can create them by yourself.

 

[~Void~]

No Void. A computer will always have superior graphic capabilities. GTA IV looked much better on the computer, I have no idea what you are talking about. My $1000 computer blows my 360 out of the water.

Graphics you say? How can a three year old graphics processor compare to a few month old graphics processor? It doesn't. It's the same with "memory capacities", whatever those are.

The games run much more smoothly on a console. Sure, you can set the graphics up really high on a computer, but you get some lag. Not to mention that GTA 4 takes up 16 GB of space, and Fallout 3 with mods takes up like 12 GB.

And on top of all that, playing games with a mouse is so fucking stupid. Yeah, I could get a controller for my PC and then hook it up to my TV, but that's so pointless.

Anyways, before this turns into a PC vs. Console war, I managed to get a savegame right before you go in with the robot, so I can use power armor and I have the Knight power armor. It's still a pain in the ass though, and I'm missing out on about 4000 caps' worth of loot from that final mission. I mean really, each Enclave soldier carries a laser rifle, plasma rifle, or gatling laser in that mission, as well as wearing Tesla armor. So that's about 400-600 caps per soldier.

 

[Kwaliti]

If you want some fun, go get T-51b Power armor and Experimental MIRV. Make sure you have A LOT of mini nukes.

By the way, Bethesda hates PS3 for some reason, it seems.

 

[Gilles]

The games run much more smoothly on a console. Sure, you can set the graphics up really high on a computer, but you get some lag. Not to mention that GTA 4 takes up 16 GB of space, and Fallout 3 with mods takes up like 12 GB.

You get lag if your computer isn't good enough. The games engine can run it just fine.
How does size matter? In fact it's an advantage for a computer, since a HDD costs a fraction of price of a consoles HDD.

 

[Tleno]

Ugh... I got T-51b, but where to find MIRV and... I can't find Dog... companion dog...

 

[Velmarshal]

No Void. A computer will always have superior graphic capabilities. GTA IV looked much better on the computer, I have no idea what you are talking about. My $1000 computer blows my 360 out of the water.

Graphics you say? How can a three year old graphics processor compare to a few month old graphics processor? It doesn't. It's the same with "memory capacities", whatever those are.

Agreed.
Mine was 1000 euros, (and it blows xbox 360 out of the water)²

 

[Kwaliti]

Ugh... I got T-51b, but where to find MIRV and... I can't find Dog... companion dog...

Dogmeat is in the Scrapyard, near the Minefield. He'll be fighting off some raiders when you see him.

To find MIRV, you'll need all five Keller family transcripts (Google it, or better, Youtube it) so you can enter the army depot.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Fallout 3= fail. I mean, in the beginning it was pretty sweet, with VATS and all. But, as expected, VATS gets old. Being the FPS junkie I am, I love playing shooters. But Fallout 3's FPS is mega clunky. And don't give me "it's not an FPS" bullshit. It's played from a FPS perspective. You have realtime combat that involves fighting from a FPS perspective. It's an FPS, RPG or not.

The immersiveness was pretty good. I especially liked the fact that I could decide to be good or evil when I'm doing a quest. But meh...

Just because "it's open world" and has "hundreds of hours of gameplay" (which it doesn't- people saying they've played Oblivion for hundreds of hours are BS'ing) doesn't amount to much when the combat (which, let me remind you, is something you do A LOT in BOTH games) sucks.


Mass Effect->Fallout 3, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic->Oblivion.

 

[Kwaliti]

Nobody forces you to use VATS.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

What I was saying is that the real-time combat was terrible and clunky. You don't run around your enemies, evading shots. You don't take cover and use strategy. You just rush, because that's what the enemies do. You rush, stand in one spot, and spray. It's as if they designed the game for total FPS newbs who do just that. And they didn't even include realistic recoil...

 

[Kwaliti]

Very Hard difficulty ftw. You get out of Vault 101, and die. xD

I think that there are some PC mods that fix FPS gameplay, not sure, but you might want to check out Nexus for that.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

You must really suck. I have it on an Xbox, and I can play through with FPS just fine. But VATS is really fun, and this is coming from some one who despises most turn based combat games/systems.

Just play with VATS AND FPS combat, you get used to it and its really fun.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

I think that there are some PC mods that fix FPS gameplay, not sure, but you might want to check out Nexus for that.

They might make other aspects of the game "realistic" or "more difficult", but they don't address the issue of clunky FPS combat.

You must really suck. I have it on an Xbox, and I can play through with FPS just fine.

It's not about me sucking at the FPS gameplay- it's about the FPS gameplay- it's about the FPS gameplay sucking.

 

[Tyranid]

Well since we're arguing combat I might as well jump in. I just hate the combat in Fallout 3. It's just horrible run and gun. Enemy difficulty is determined only AND only by their health and damaged. Otherwise their behaviour is always the same. The combat also lacks any sort of strategy, it's just VATS the head or run around and shoot the enemy.

Now, even if I'm a FO 1&2 fan, I'm ok with FPS Fallout. However it has to be done right! If I'd get to choose I would have made FO 3 more like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadows of Chernobyl (haven't played Clear Sky).

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Well since we're arguing combat I might as well jump in. I just hate the combat in Fallout 3. It's just horrible run and gun. Enemy difficulty is determined only AND only by their health and damaged. Otherwise their behaviour is always the same. The combat also lacks any sort of strategy, it's just VATS the head or run around and shoot the enemy

Exactly why I think it's so badly done! And your missing something, you know. You forgot to say the accepted FPS strategy (for the player) is to spray.

 

[Tleno]

Well since we're arguing combat I might as well jump in. I just hate the combat in Fallout 3. It's just horrible run and gun. Enemy difficulty is determined only AND only by their health and damaged. Otherwise their behaviour is always the same. The combat also lacks any sort of strategy, it's just VATS the head or run around and shoot the enemy.

Now, even if I'm a FO 1&2 fan, I'm ok with FPS Fallout. However it has to be done right! If I'd get to choose I would have made FO 3 more like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadows of Chernobyl (haven't played Clear Sky).

Clear sky is very bugged up. But it is cool. And enemy AI is smart...

And V.A.T.S. + bloody mess perk = ^^

 

[Kwaliti]

And don't forget the exploding pants xD

 

[Reaper2008]

Bah, PS3 is heavily superior due to blue ray. It's worth buying just for God of War 3 and all the stuff at PS3 store, official mods and all...

 

[Tleno]

And don't forget the exploding pants xD

Hipnotrone too!

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

I have a good comparison to make. I'm assuming we are all (somewhat) familiar with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, yes? And I'm assuming we know how the combat in that game and it's sequel works, yes? Quite similar to Fallout 3, it's cinematic, with melee attack animations that seem almost choreographed. It's also turn based. Each time you spot an enemy, the game pauses and allows you to choose an action to perform (although you can pause the game at any time). Once you target an enemy, you can order you and your party to attack it (or use Force powers/Feats). However, unlike Fallout 3, the game requires strategy. You need to carefully decide which attacks or Feats/Powers to use. Using an ineffective ability for a combat situation (particularly with bosses) could very well mean the difference between life and death.
v
In Fallout 3, however, the only "Strategy" involved is selecting a body part to shoot. Sure, it's cinematic and all, but there's no true strategy involved. The only "strategy" I know of is to shoot certain parts of your enemy and cause him to drop his weapon or whatever, but this doesn't really do much except for letting you automatically headshot him a few times.

Edit: ^ this stuff is talking about VATS.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

I have a good comparison to make. I'm assuming we are all (somewhat) familiar with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, yes? And I'm assuming we know how the combat in that game and it's sequel works, yes? Quite similar to Fallout 3, it's cinematic, with melee attack animations that seem almost choreographed. It's also turn based. Each time you spot an enemy, the game pauses and allows you to choose an action to perform (although you can pause the game at any time). Once you target an enemy, you can order you and your party to attack it (or use Force powers/Feats). However, unlike Fallout 3, the game requires strategy. You need to carefully decide which attacks or Feats/Powers to use. Using an ineffective ability for a combat situation (particularly with bosses) could very well mean the difference between life and death.
v
In Fallout 3, however, the only "Strategy" involved is selecting a body part to shoot. Sure, it's cinematic and all, but there's no true strategy involved. The only "strategy" I know of is to shoot certain parts of your enemy and cause him to drop his weapon or whatever, but this doesn't really do much except for letting you automatically headshot him a few times.

Edit: ^ this stuff is talking about VATS.

You obviously miss the point. VATS is made to be cinematic, not strategical. Fallout 3 isn't made to be some epic RPG with extreme strategical depth, its premise and gameplay is simple, but its the amount of content and the sense of immersion that will draw you into the game.

By your logic, I could say the same about practically more than half the RPGs out there. You're treating fallout 3 as the game it isn't.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

I saw a hands-on gameplay video/interview on G4 before Fallout 3 was released. The developer (who's name I don't remember off the top of my head) said that he wanted VATS to be fun to watch, but also to be tactical.

Considering the fact that the game takes place in first person, I assumed that Fallout 3 would have combat that isn't lackluster like it's cousin, Oblivion.

And yes, I am treating Fallout 3 as the game it isn't, because it shattered my first conceptions like Oblivion did. Like Oblivion, I started out enjoying the immersion. But once I became more interested in FPS, my enjoyment began to die down. Immersiveness doesn't make a game, and neither do graphics- gameplay does, and gameplay is all that matters. That's why I still play Unreal Tournament 99' and why I still enjoy playing Age of Empires 2.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

I saw a hands-on gameplay video/interview on G4 before Fallout 3 was released. The developer (who's name I don't remember off the top of my head) said that he wanted VATS to be fun to watch, but also to be tactical.

Considering the fact that the game takes place in first person, I assumed that Fallout 3 would have combat that isn't lackluster like it's cousin, Oblivion.

And yes, I am treating Fallout 3 as the game it isn't, because it shattered my first conceptions like Oblivion did. Like Oblivion, I started out enjoying the immersion. But once I became more interested in FPS, my enjoyment began to die down. Immersiveness doesn't make a game, and neither do graphics- gameplay does, and gameplay is all that matters. That's why I still play Unreal Tournament 99' and why I still enjoy playing Age of Empires 2.

Since fallout 3 was in first person, it should have better combat than Oblivion? Oblivion is first person.

What?

Further more, the gameplay is fine. It doesn't serve an overly complex or tactical purpose, but it suits the game just fine. The distribution of your perks, the pure of joy of watching an enemies head fly off in 3 different directions. It's better than the sum of its parts, and in the end they all take side seat to the true star of the game which is the immersive atmosphere and interactivity. The sheer amounts of ways to solve a single quest, theres a moral choice and a different possible out come in practically every conversation you'll ever have with every character. It demands several play throughs.

If none of the above impresses you, then Fallout 3 is not a game that fits your taste just naturally. You would be better off playing games like Halo 3 then, I suppose (Which is great, I mean.)

Stray away from narrative/immersive games then; Bioshock, Fallout 3, Penumbra, Assassin's Creed, Far cry 2..

They share the same driving force, to which all other elements of play take a side seat.

Plenty of people enjoy these types of games, if you don't thats your own taste, but that doesn't mean the game is bad because it doesn't suit you.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Since fallout 3 was in first person, it should have better combat than Oblivion? Oblivion is first person.

Oblivion's combat was brain-dead boring. Slash, slash, block, slash, slash, block... etc.

I love immersive roleplaying games. I love roleplaying games with moral choices. Fallout 3 did both extremely well! But when combat, which takes up the biggest part of most games (such as Fallout 3), is simplistic, mindless, and repetitive, are you really going to enjoy the game?

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Oblivion's combat was brain-dead boring. Slash, slash, block, slash, slash, block... etc.

I love immersive roleplaying games. I love roleplaying games with moral choices. Fallout 3 did both extremely well! But when combat, which takes up the biggest part of most games (such as Fallout 3), is simplistic, mindless, and repetitive, are you really going to enjoy the game?

Yes. It works well, looks cool, and is fine the way it is. I don't see how you find it Mindless, repetitive and simplistic. Because it really isn't.

By your logic, I could say the same for any game.

And for the Oblivion thing I was just pointing out that you contradicted yourself (You claimed Fallout 3 being first person would mean it is an improvement, while Oblivion was also first person.)

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Yes. It works well, looks cool, and is fine the way it is. I don't see how you find it Mindless, repetitive and simplistic.

Like I just said- slash, slash, block for melee, archery is piss easy (no bow swaying or anything), and magic is utterly boring. The fact that the interaction with the environment is virtually non-existent doesn't help either. You can't even push opponents into traps!

Because it really isn't.

Yes it is.

By your logic, I could say the same for any game.

No, not really. You can only say that about games that are as simple, easy, and boring as Oblivion. A perfect example is, dare I say it? Runescape.

And for the Oblivion thing I was just pointing out that you contradicted yourself (You claimed Fallout 3 being first person would mean it is an improvement, while Oblivion was also first person.)

What I'm saying is that because Oblivion's combat sucked, they should have improved it- not dumb it down even more.

 

[LordDz]

No, not really. You can only say that about games that are as simple, easy, and boring as Oblivion. A perfect example is, dare I say it? Runescape.

Not to flame here but.. Do you seriously say Runescape as an good example on combat? Where you press one button, let your character roll a dice and hope for the lord of god that you get a hit?

In oblivion and fallout 3, at least when you did hit the guy, you did hit the guy! Not seeing a blue *0* hit.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

I wasn't comparing the actual combat. I was comparing the simplicity.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Like I just said- slash, slash, block for melee, archery is piss easy (no bow swaying or anything), and magic is utterly boring. The fact that the interaction with the environment is virtually non-existent doesn't help either. You can't even push opponents into traps!

Yes it is.

No, not really. You can only say that about games that are as simple, easy, and boring as Oblivion. A perfect example is, dare I say it? Runescape.

What I'm saying is that because Oblivion's combat sucked, they should have improved it- not dumb it down even more.

I was talking about Fallout 3. VATs does actually bring in a small strategical element. There's the juggling of ammunition (Which is usually scarce, so you'll be switching weapons often.), regular FPS combat, mixed together with RPG elements.

It's an FPS with a lot of RPG elements. Nothing about it is repetitive, simple or dull. And the fact that it has a huge fan base (It, and the other games like it) is a testament to that fun factor which you obviously fail to see (Again, a matter of taste.)


No it isn't.

If you can call Fallout 3 simple, easy, and boring. Then I can call, by your way of thinking, Halo 3 boring, simple and easy.

You point and shoot, and there is grenades and you jump 5 feet.

I could say the same about Bioshock.

Oh, you shoot guns and use genetic powers. Simple and boring.

I could say the same about...

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

There's actual strategy to regular FPS'es like Halo 3 and Bioshock. The FPS side of Fallout 3 has none.

 

[Tyranid]

I'm going to have to agree with I)eadnerzhul. Fallout 3's combat is completely devoid of any sort of strategy. The lack of advanced enemy behaviour, lack of weak spots (besides the mystical "head" ) and also the godlikeness of your character simply makes the combat repetetive, boring and way too easy.

Also I don't feel the game as all that immersive or anything. The world is kind of cool but at the same time just feels blank and boring. The quests and mediocre, the moral choices just don't make me feel conflicted at all and the dialogue is just horrid.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Yeah... they need to get more diverse voice actors. Didn't Oblivion use only like ten consistent voice actors?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Back the the orignal point of the thread.
The PS3 is weaker than the 360 graphically as far as textures and AA.
The 360 was totally whiped graphically by the PC.

Evidence? Well the fact that they did a benchmark with the very game, fallout 3, proves that the consols are weaker than the PC. The PC can run at higher frame rates, with less lag and better graphics.

GTA4 was an exception, because the PC version was made to take advantage of the PC, thus it dose more than eithor the 360 and PS3 versions. The PC GTA4 buffers all nearby rooms into RAM, allowing you to instantly enter them, while the PS3 and 360 both suffer loading times entering them. This comes at a cost however, and combined with other demanding extensions results in the PC GTA4 being a lot more demanding than the consols because it does a lot more. However, it has been proved that people with quad cores can achieve 40+ FPS at really high graphic settings with even some AA enabled, far exceeding the consol in every way.

I was supprised when watching a streamed movie of fallout 3 that it had an end. But really the makers are not very good RPG makers. Although they make RPGS that are prone to wasting a lot of your life, they lack many obvious features or fail in some way.

They need to stop messing around trying to be orignal, and just reuse tried and tested ideas more. Yes they may be boring but in the end they are a hell of a lot better to play. One of those ideas I am refering to is a storyline where you do not die at the end.

 

[Belgarath]

Oblivion combat isn't all THAT boring if you do it properly, you have to use some brainpower with the blocking, dodging (acrobatics/block), backwards slash, forwards slash, side slash, or whatever. For example, I would never have been able to kill Umbra if I didn't use my brain, and had a bit of luck.
FO3's combat is like an FPS gone bad, unluckily. Headshots often do fuck all damage, or just directly blow their brains out, real nice SFX, but in the long run, it gets extremely boring to look at headless corpses. Then also, the FPS factor of it is.. crap. You stand there, barely move your mouse, and just spray and pray the entire time. Aiming? For dicks, unless you're using the sniper rifle.
FO3 was quite cool, but it was extremely disappointing in many areas. Story. Combat. (others)

Yep, voice actors are shit in Oblivion & FO3. You're constantly talking to the same guy >_<

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

Back the the orignal point of the thread.

That made me laugh. The guy was complaining about how beating the main quest in Fallout 3 ends the game, not about the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 argument.

And Belgarath, that's actually something I enjoy about Oblivion. It's quite funny to be chased by 20 people shouting the same thing... "STOP! YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW... etc. etc. etc."

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Back the the orignal point of the thread.
The PS3 is weaker than the 360 graphically as far as textures and AA.
The 360 was totally whiped graphically by the PC.

Evidence? Well the fact that they did a benchmark with the very game, fallout 3, proves that the consols are weaker than the PC. The PC can run at higher frame rates, with less lag and better graphics.

GTA4 was an exception, because the PC version was made to take advantage of the PC, thus it dose more than eithor the 360 and PS3 versions. The PC GTA4 buffers all nearby rooms into RAM, allowing you to instantly enter them, while the PS3 and 360 both suffer loading times entering them. This comes at a cost however, and combined with other demanding extensions results in the PC GTA4 being a lot more demanding than the consols because it does a lot more. However, it has been proved that people with quad cores can achieve 40+ FPS at really high graphic settings with even some AA enabled, far exceeding the consol in every way.

I was supprised when watching a streamed movie of fallout 3 that it had an end. But really the makers are not very good RPG makers. Although they make RPGS that are prone to wasting a lot of your life, they lack many obvious features or fail in some way.

They need to stop messing around trying to be orignal, and just reuse tried and tested ideas more. Yes they may be boring but in the end they are a hell of a lot better to play. One of those ideas I am refering to is a storyline where you do not die at the end.

Who the hell started an argument about a console being stronger than a PC? Well no fucking shit a PC is stronger than a console, that's not even an argument.

You're right, Bethesda games are terrible. They are a disappointment to me, a disappointment to the millions of people buying them, and a disappointment to those of us who wasted more than 30 hours at the very least on one of their shitty terrible games.

Be sure that the next time they release a game, I'll be buying it to tell you all how horrible it is. I'll have to keep on playing though, at least 40 or so hours, just to make sure I've covered every terrible mind numbing detail.

Bethesda isn't wasting my time with their shitty games anymore.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

You're right, Bethesda games are terrible. They are a disappointment to me, a disappointment to the millions of people buying them, and a disappointment to those of us who wasted more than 30 hours at the very least on one of their shitty terrible games.

Be sure that the next time they release a game, I'll be buying it to tell you all how horrible it is. I'll have to keep on playing though, at least 40 or so hours, just to make sure I've covered every terrible mind numbing detail.

Bethesda isn't wasting my time with their shitty games anymore.

Is this sarcasm, or do you really hate Bethesda's games now?

 

[Steel_Stallion]

Its sarcasm, pointing out the fact that despite the fact that people could claim many faults about it, they still bought it. They still played it for over 30 hours (If it sucked, they wouldn't. It has this draw that keeps sucking you in to play for more.), and they'll do it all over again once the next Elder Scrolls/god knows what game Bethesda makes comes out.

 

[I)eadnerzhul]

The draw is quite simple: it's piss easy and completely shallow, so anyone that sucks at FPS can beat it in five seconds. That's why you and so many other people love it so much.