Fallout 3 opinion

[Mara]

Playing Fallout 3 reminds me of the many difficulties I faced when playing Oblivion, also an open-world RPG by Bethesda, as well as many of the joys. It also makes the deficiencies of that gameplay model increasingly apparent. While Fallout 3 makes some impressive strides, in certain structural aspects, it is so backward that it makes other games look revolutionary.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21531

[bossjimbob]

I don't agree with the author. I've had plenty of "personal" experiences playing Fallout 3. The author totally undersells the quality of the writing and the interesting characters in the game, as well as the depth and flexibility of each quest.

[MassiveEffect]

I hate to admit it, but I didn't even play more then a couple of hours of Oblivion.
I found It so boring.
Fallout 3 on the other hand I could play ( and still play , but not so much) a few hours a day.

[Joe Cool]

He has some points about npcs just being there for you to use them for quests, info, ect. But, come on, its a game!

I have sunk about 30 hours into F3 and I'm only starting to slow down now.

[Rob]

He has some points about npcs just being there for you to use them for quests, info, ect. But, come on, its a game! What game doesn't?

I enjoyed both Oblivion and Fallout 3. There are no doubt considerable similarities, but I find the concept of Oblivion with guns to be far off the mark.

As far as no emotional connection, I have two words for him: Megaton City. No emotion? Then he is a robot.

I don’t necessarily want a brilliantly told story; I don’t need every game to be Mass Effect (a game that offended me to no end with its boring, barren, uninteresting explorable worlds). I just want a little believability, maybe some actual complexity of character (or just character presentation).

He is talking about optional side quests and even then it is more open to interpretation. Scripted locations are very detailed and populated. What truly sticks out in my mind from his above statement is his belief he doesn't need a good storyline. So on one hand he feels no connection with his character in Fallout 3, and on the other hand story isn't too important. Sounds like he would much rather play a hybrid FPS and The Sims game.

He doesn’t care for the game, and despite bringing up the Witcher, not sure if he cares for the genre. That is no big deal, you can’t like every game. I do not feel he made a very compelling argument.

[Joe Cool]

What game doesn't?


My point exactly.

[shizakapayou]

Maybe I didn't read into it enough, but comparing Fallout 3 to Jedi Outcast is pretty apples to oranges. RPGs tend to be pretty obvious in your leveling up.

There are a fair amount of personal experiences in Fallout, I'd agree (I need to replay sometime and blow up Megaton). A number of the NPCs do fall short of what I'd enjoy, though. For whatever reason I found I enjoyed talking to people in Mass Effect more.

[Contagious Rage]

Minor niggles:

Fallout 3 is one of the most vast, varied and rich games of our time, but it is also possible to view it as flat and lacking in the things that actually make a game deep.

...

[Fallout 3] is consistently impressive, a game that easily surprises me, well beyond the 10-hours-plus gameplay mark. It succeeds through its depth and breadth.

...

In Fallout 3, it is never the act that excites me, but the overwhelming display of depth and detail.

I could make the same distinctions between Outcast and Fallout 3, the same distinctions between what I enjoy in both games. In Outcast, I progress so that I can become a more powerful Jedi, but my rewards are the new ways in which I move and fight.
You could be a Jedi in Outcast!? Is that what Ulukai actually meant? :p:

*

As for the article, I only read about half of it because I'm pretty sure I've already read/felt it two or three times before when Morrowind and Oblivion came out respectively. While I don't necessarily believe an open-ended, non-linear RPG and a RPG with great characters, personality, compelling plot are mutually exclusive, in my experience the more open-ended style games aren't conducive to providing those elements. I mean it's obviously easier to write a tighter, deeper story around predefined personality(s) like in The Witcher as opposed to trying to provide compelling situations that must be vague enough in some aspects so that they can be applied to any character you choose to create.

Honestly, I hardly ever got much emotion out of playing through Morrowind, Oblivion, or even Fallout 3 really. Despite replaying Morrowind this month, I still couldn't really tell you much about the story or the characters--it just wasn't interesting to me. Heck, disinterest in that aspect of the game is the main reason I often name myself after a celebrity (or even video game characters from other games) and then make up the story as I go.

But at the end of the day I just accept that they're different approaches to RPG making and try to enjoy each by the strengths their particular approach affords... At least until there's a Super RPG that combines the breadth of a Morrowind/Oblivion, the personality of an Anachronox, the strong characters of a Planescape: Torment/Anachronox, the intrigue and voice-acting of Bloodlines, the choices of Witcher, the story and fulfillment of a Planescape: Torment, the music of Divine Divinity, the--what was the topic again?

[gameraddict]

Heh. Another article that tries to compare a car to a mountain bike. They both try to get you places, but the experiences are intended to be completely different.

Seriously, comparing Fallout 3 to Jedi Outcast is a big stretch, and not very good writing. Witcher's a bit better, but then he's really comparing open-ended, free-roaming gaming worlds to tightly scripted story-telling.

It's the nature of the beast that you might have more difficulty bonding with characters in an open world game. The game doesn't have time to let you watch the thousand characters it has grow and develop so that you form an attachment. Most of the time, the only background you get is via a dialogue tree that gives you the basics of that NPC's predicament. Compare that to the bond I developed saving all the Little Sisters in Bioshock (and even the sympathy I felt for their lumbering protectors), and it would almost seem the author of that article might have a point.

Except that he misses the point entirely, in my opinion. To me, an open world is about exploring, leveling and creating your own level of immersion with the NPCs. It leaves a lot up to the player as to how deep they want to flesh out the NPCs, given the bare skeleton the game itself actually gives.

It's like the dungeon master telling you "You see a boy who's sad because his dad was killed" and you add in your mind "Poor kid. He's alone. Probably watched his mother and sister die during the war, and now he's lost the last person he has in the world".

A game like the Witcher or Bioshock will give you that level of detail of their characters because they're part of an overarching storyline the game is telling you. Much easier for me to like (or hate) characters in those games, just like I bond with characters in a good book.

Depending on my mood, I like both types of games, as long as they're executed well. I think Fallout 3 and the Witcher (and even Jedi Outcast) executed what they were trying to do very well.

The author likes tightly written, overarching storylines in his games. Good for him. I just disagree that the things he laments about in Fallout 3 are actual shortcomings and more an indication of his preferences.