Fallout3 Shortcomings & your ideas

[ancalimonungol]

I bought a PC next to my Amiga because of Fallout1 and 2. What made me love Fallout were mostly these:

 

1- the many choices I could make and the results would be different. (it didn't happen in Fallout3) (the advantage of Fallout3 is that because it is simple, it doesn't have as many bugs as the first two games)

2- luck changed what the random encounters were. (it doesn't exist in Fallout3)

3- intelligence changed what my character said and the reaction to it.

 

When I played Fallout3 for the first time these things disappointed me a lot.

1 - fps games kill the brain cells. And Fallout had become a fps. First I thought Bethesda did it this way to sell the game to children as well (which ironically seems to be true), but later I got used to it and started to think this was better than the old system.

2 - Even considering the inferiority of Fallout3 over Fallout1 and 2 when making choices, the choices you make don't really have much (if not any) effect on the outcome. It's merely cosmetic and deceiving.

 

Fallout3 should have been more complete. There are so many shortcomings that are not acceptable for a name like Fallout, and technology of the game is very weak considering the year it came out.

1 - The dialogues are beyond awful.

2 - Characters move unrealisticaly.

3 - Body parts that should move do not move (like hair) (Bethesda could at least imitate the much older game; Vampire Bloodlines)

4 - There is a huge bug (or a design fault) in the game. Some character can not be killed.

5 - The world is incomplete. There are no drug addicts using drugs, and there are no children stealing things.

 

Lets just hope New Vegas turns out to be a better game with a fixed engine (not another copy of the "dull" oblivion engine), and deserve to be the game of the year unlike Fallout3 which was chosen just because of Fallout1 and 2.

 

If you're once again going to make a fps, at least make it so that the physics, movement are realistic and characters have a little bit more character in them.

 

Play and finish Fallout1 and Fallout2 (plus mods and bug fixes) a couple of times to understand why people loved those games.

 

By the way I like Fallout3.

[evilneko]

1 - The dialogues are beyond awful.

Your standards are way, way, way too high then. You are obviously unsatisfied with anything not on the level of Shakespeare or Chaucer. Some of it is below average, yes, but the majority of it is good or decent at least, and not jarring.

 

2 - Characters move unrealisticaly.

As opposed to how they moved in previous games?

 

4 - There is a huge bug (or a design fault) in the game. Some character can not be killed.

Nigh universal to the entire RPG genre. Think about it this way: the stock game is intended to end one of three ways. It's a book with three endings to choose from. This necessitates that certain characters live until the script calls for them to die, be that at a certain point or never. Allowing these essential characters to die necessitates a new ending other than what is written, thus forcing the plot to grind to a halt at whatever point that character was needed again.

 

If I were to teleport myself into the Babylon 5 universe and kill Captain Sheridan or Delenn in the middle of seaons 2, I'd throw out the majority of seasons 3, 4, and 5. JMS would have to go and rewrite more than half the show. Similarly if I jumped into the Capital Wasteland and turned Dad into Yao Guai kibble before you even get out of the vault, all that'd be left is a giant sandbox to explore. A book, or a game, or a tv show, can't rewrite itself after it's been written, and there's only so much that can be written in before release.

 

5 - The world is incomplete. There are no drug addicts using drugs, and there are no children stealing things.

 

There are two drug addicts I can name off the top of my head without even taking a moment to think. Though I don't think you ever see them actually shoot up, the evidence is there.

[Malikin]

There is a lot to consider about the development of a game. The first stop is the production costs and where the money comes from. Within a certain budget, there is only so much that can be done, and so really the developers are at the mercy of the money issue. I think that by using what they knew, Bethesda kept the game within a realistic budget, for them. The use of the engine, the restrictions on animation, i.e. hair, and the decisions to leave out work that had already been done all comes down to time vs. budget. It is the unfortunate reality that game makers must face. Some games get more attention than others. Bethesda is blessed in that they can afford to concentrate on one game in a given portion of time and still keep their overhead paid. Other bigger companies can work on several ongoing projects, in various stages, without worry. This happens because they are constantly releasing and starting new projects while others are still being finished. The very small companies often have to fight for their budgets and must rely on the mercy of their investors.

 

With all that being said, one also must take into consideration the voice actors. Using big names comes at a price. I personally think that they chose poorly. Liam was a great choice.. some of the others, not so much. The voice actors that they had in Oblivion and thus in FO3, who could voice a range of different characters, are truly worth the money.

 

We see that after the initial release, and thus the balance of making investor's happy, we get more content released. Not many games go this far, outside of MMOs. Bethesda truly caters to the gamer in many respects. They offer modders resources and gives a lot of support. Considering the license issues and the money that can go with it, modders are given extraordinary freedom without paying a large cost. ( A side note: It would be a very groundbreaking move to include modders in the game making process, considering the legalities behind the notion. Perhaps our vision of a game can become real if modders were introduced to the process, beta testing not included.)

 

I really do see your point and I am sure you have considered what I have already mentioned. However, even with these thoughts, there is much that could have been done with the game. The dialogue does get to me a bit, in the regards to how experienced my character is when he/she meets a faction, when I get the same answer every run through. If I have several hundred Super Mutant kills under my belt, I do expect the BOS and Outcasts to change their tune. Considering I can also take out the Enclave without too much resistance, I would thing either BOS faction would be cautious about upsetting my character. Yet, in defense of Bethesda, scripting all the possibilities is an enormous task and takes time. As I mentioned before, to add a quote "Vodka is a luxury we have. Caviar is a luxury we have. Time is not." (Enemy at the Gates, 2001), and Bethesda goes the same.. perhaps without the former mentions. :)

 

As for some immortal characters, like the annoying kids of Little Lamplight, one must consider the overall audience of the game. Yes, Bethesda wanted to sell the game to both adults and kids. Yes, Bethesda wanted a "M" rating, versus a much stricter one. Yes, I believe, Bethesda took into consideration their joke of the Adoring Fan from Oblivion, and thus gave us more character that we love to hate. Which, by the way, killing Zimmer in a variety of ways is fun, and a good way to test weapons out. The other issue was covered by evilniko, respectively.

 

I wonder what our community feel about the comparison to previous Fallouts based on the efforts of the Modders and their contributions. I ask our community: Do the modifications offered by our talented community make a difference in realtion tot eh gaps between FO1, 2, and 3? I personally think that I can honestly say that I am not let down by any of them and my experience in playing FO3 is improved drastically by the modders. I appreciate their time and effort, just as I appreciate the conversations I read and participate in on the forums.

 

~Mal

[ancalimonungol]

1 - The dialogues are beyond awful.

Your standards are way, way, way too high then. You are obviously unsatisfied with anything not on the level of Shakespeare or Chaucer. Some of it is below average, yes, but the majority of it is good or decent at least, and not jarring.

 

I'm just comparing it with Fallout 1 & 2. It's a huge immersion breaker. In RPG games, characters need to have characters. I don't even care for spoken dialogues. I just wanted to see properly "written" dialogue. To set the mood.

 

 

2 - Characters move unrealistically.

As opposed to how they moved in previous games?

 

As apposed to how characters should move in a modern fps game. :) I'm not comparing it to a game made in the nineties. During the tutorial, when I see my dad showing "walking forward animation" but actually walking backwards, it's an immersion breaker for me. If they decided to make the game a fps, then they should have paid attention to the detail.

 

4 - There is a huge bug (or a design fault) in the game. Some character can not be killed.

Nigh universal to the entire RPG genre. Think about it this way: the stock game is intended to end one of three ways. It's a book with three endings to choose from. This necessitates that certain characters live until the script calls for them to die, be that at a certain point or never. Allowing these essential characters to die necessitates a new ending other than what is written, thus forcing the plot to grind to a halt at whatever point that character was needed again.

 

If I were to teleport myself into the Babylon 5 universe and kill Captain Sheridan or Delenn in the middle of seaons 2, I'd throw out the majority of seasons 3, 4, and 5. JMS would have to go and rewrite more than half the show. Similarly if I jumped into the Capital Wasteland and turned Dad into Yao Guai kibble before you even get out of the vault, all that'd be left is a giant sandbox to explore. A book, or a game, or a tv show, can't rewrite itself after it's been written, and there's only so much that can be written in before release.

 

There should always be another way to finish the game or a quest even after killing key characters. It's Fallout we are talking about. If you kill Amata while escaping the vault, then there should be another person later who wants to give you a quest which Amata is supposed to give.

 

5 - The world is incomplete. There are no drug addicts using drugs, and there are no children stealing things.

 

There are two drug addicts I can name off the top of my head without even taking a moment to think. Though I don't think you ever see them actually shoot up, the evidence is there.

 

In Fallout 2, There were tens of drug addicts in the streets. There were prostitutes selling themselves. There were children running around the streets. When you were walking those streets you felt how it could be really like. Fallout1 and 2 were not forgiving.

[ancalimonungol]

There is a lot to consider about the development of a game. The first stop is the production costs and where the money comes from. Within a certain budget, there is only so much that can be done, and so really the developers are at the mercy of the money issue. I think that by using what they knew, Bethesda kept the game within a realistic budget, for them. The use of the engine, the restrictions on animation, i.e. hair, and the decisions to leave out work that had already been done all comes down to time vs. budget. It is the unfortunate reality that game makers must face. Some games get more attention than others. Bethesda is blessed in that they can afford to concentrate on one game in a given portion of time and still keep their overhead paid. Other bigger companies can work on several ongoing projects, in various stages, without worry. This happens because they are constantly releasing and starting new projects while others are still being finished. The very small companies often have to fight for their budgets and must rely on the mercy of their investors.

 

With all that being said, one also must take into consideration the voice actors. Using big names comes at a price. I personally think that they chose poorly. Liam was a great choice.. some of the others, not so much. The voice actors that they had in Oblivion and thus in FO3, who could voice a range of different characters, are truly worth the money.

 

We see that after the initial release, and thus the balance of making investor's happy, we get more content released. Not many games go this far, outside of MMOs. Bethesda truly caters to the gamer in many respects. They offer modders resources and gives a lot of support. Considering the license issues and the money that can go with it, modders are given extraordinary freedom without paying a large cost. ( A side note: It would be a very groundbreaking move to include modders in the game making process, considering the legalities behind the notion. Perhaps our vision of a game can become real if modders were introduced to the process, beta testing not included.)

 

I really do see your point and I am sure you have considered what I have already mentioned. However, even with these thoughts, there is much that could have been done with the game. The dialogue does get to me a bit, in the regards to how experienced my character is when he/she meets a faction, when I get the same answer every run through. If I have several hundred Super Mutant kills under my belt, I do expect the BOS and Outcasts to change their tune. Considering I can also take out the Enclave without too much resistance, I would thing either BOS faction would be cautious about upsetting my character. Yet, in defense of Bethesda, scripting all the possibilities is an enormous task and takes time. As I mentioned before, to add a quote "Vodka is a luxury we have. Caviar is a luxury we have. Time is not." (Enemy at the Gates, 2001), and Bethesda goes the same.. perhaps without the former mentions. :)

 

As for some immortal characters, like the annoying kids of Little Lamplight, one must consider the overall audience of the game. Yes, Bethesda wanted to sell the game to both adults and kids. Yes, Bethesda wanted a "M" rating, versus a much stricter one. Yes, I believe, Bethesda took into consideration their joke of the Adoring Fan from Oblivion, and thus gave us more character that we love to hate. Which, by the way, killing Zimmer in a variety of ways is fun, and a good way to test weapons out. The other issue was covered by evilniko, respectively.

 

I wonder what our community feel about the comparison to previous Fallouts based on the efforts of the Modders and their contributions. I ask our community: Do the modifications offered by our talented community make a difference in realtion tot eh gaps between FO1, 2, and 3? I personally think that I can honestly say that I am not let down by any of them and my experience in playing FO3 is improved drastically by the modders. I appreciate their time and effort, just as I appreciate the conversations I read and participate in on the forums.

 

~Mal

 

I don't really care if the dialogues have voice or not. I just wish the script is written so that I can understand which character I'm talking to without even knowing it. The dialogue is lifeless. It's like Oblivion. Once playing for sometime, the only thing that keeps me returning to it is to see more scenery.

 

The bugs there are few are show stopper bugs. Some of these bugs are extremely disturbing. I just started a new game and saw a guy fall into the radiated pool. It immediately stopped my will to continue further fearing he would later die and stop me from having fun.

 

Most of the quests feel like they rushed to finish them. Like the ant queen quest. After you help the doctor out but not kill the ant queen, the doctor wonders into the cave and when you follow him you see him running wildly in the cave because he got scared of the ant. Why didn't they think about what he would do.

 

On some of my playthrough tries the small kid who asks for help about the fireants didn't exist at all.

 

Where are the fun encounters similar to the shotgun wedding in Fallout2.

 

Look at Fallout2 perks and especial special perks: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_perks These were really cool

 

I want to give an example to how things were in Fallout2.

 

I was playing a female character and she had sex with many persons and by doing so she gained the Kama Sutra Master perk. She decided to become a pornstar (She started small by readying the men and climbed the ladder to become one) As far as I remember she also caught a disease (there is no best way in Fallout1 and 2) She traveled to a farm where a conservative family lived and the woman recognized her as a porn star and her reaction was extremely different. I think there were also screens advertising about my character all over the city.

 

She married once, later she got fed up and had a choice to sell her husband to the slavers but decided to divorce in a church.

 

She found a baby left in the street and as far as I remember, she could sell her to the slavers.

 

She had a car to drive and she even modified the car.

 

She helped a woman repair a building which was used by drug addicts to convert it to a school for street children.

 

If people reading this have never played the old games, I'm sure they will be shocked by reading these lines and understand that it was difficult to satisfy my generation. Being able to cut people in two was not reason why we fell in love with Fallout. This is how immerse, and deep Fallout2 was, as a result anyone who played them automatically have higher expectations from Fallout3.

 

I'm not saying Fallout3 is not a good game. It's an exceptionally good game. I'm saying it's worthless when compared to how Fallout 1 and 2 made us feel.

[Burbinator]

^^ IRCC, repairing the building for the street orphans in the den is something added by killap's restoration patch and was not in th eoriginal game. And I mean, you sort of misconstrue some of these incidents. True, you can become a pornstar, but the whole New Reno city is itself gimmicky and, honestly, one of the worst parts of FO2. Talk about immersion breaking, a city with real mobsters that makes most of its money from tourism in post apocalyptia? The whole place was filled with gags and jokes.

 

Getting married is also more of a joke thing in FO2. You seduce a random guy, then his dad forces you into a shotgun wedding. It's for laughs. It's not intentional, there's no character development here, your "husband" is pretty annoying to be honest. It'd be more interesting if it were possible to actually court people and get them to fall in love with you, but that's not the case here at all.

 

Baby in the street? Been a while, don't remember that part.

 

Anyway, FO2 is actually not the best game to talk about immersion. There's at least half a dozen "joke" random encounters. Funny, but immersion breaking. All the monty python references. The Hubologists and their celebrities (amusing mockery of scientologists, but still stupid). The retardedly cliche "kung-fu" town of San Fran. The whole city of New Reno.

 

The perks in FO2 weren't very good. There is very little deviation if you want to be good at combat, either you get slayer or sniper at level 20 for crits on 95% of your attacks with luck 10, get action boy perks, get bonus move, get bonus ranged/hth attacks. There are lots of useless perks, like bonus hth/ranged damage (actually only adds 2 to your max, meaning 1 damage an attack.) They also had the useless Here and Now perk. Other perks are just for fun but never of any real use, like kama sutra master (just have sex with prostitutes to get the title and it's the same thing) or cult of personality (dispositoin is useless and ridiculous requirement of 10 ch). Also many o fthe bland +skill perks. I mean really, point at any bland perk in fo3 and you can find it (or a cousin) in fo2. Heck, if we're going to talk game mechanics, at least all the skills in fo3 are mildly useful. Throwing is absolutely terrible in fo2, it's a challenge skill. Repair and science are used mostly for the extra xp and sometimes for convenience, but they're not used very often, heck you can use tools to boost your repair skill anyway (super tool kit is only 10 pounds and like +50 to repair or something) You didn't even need to put points into them because you could just get skill books. By late game, it's a very simple matter to continouously buy out the skill books from the merchants. First aid was a totally useless skill in comparison to doctor, which was better, gave more xp, and could heal crippled limbs. The extra hp gain is infinitesimal when you can just stim (and it's easy to get several thousand stims by San Fran).

 

Eh. In some regards FO2 better than FO3, but I think you are looking at the past through rosy-colored glasses. The main problem isn't that FO3 is necessarily worse, but that it hasn't improved on these issues even being like a decade newer. That's pretty pathetic.

[ancalimonungol]

^^ IRCC, repairing the building for the street orphans in the den is something added by killap's restoration patch and was not in th eoriginal game. And I mean, you sort of misconstrue some of these incidents. True, you can become a pornstar, but the whole New Reno city is itself gimmicky and, honestly, one of the worst parts of FO2. Talk about immersion breaking, a city with real mobsters that makes most of its money from tourism in post apocalyptia? The whole place was filled with gags and jokes.

 

.....

 

Eh. In some regards FO2 better than FO3, but I think you are looking at the past through rosy-colored glasses. The main problem isn't that FO3 is necessarily worse, but that it hasn't improved on these issues even being like a decade newer. That's pretty pathetic.

 

I think not being able to repair the building was a bug which was later fixed by killap.

 

I always liked New Reno part. Yes there were jokes, there were strange things like mobsters making money from tourism. But that was what Fallout was about :) It's the world itself, it's supposed to look like that.

 

The immersion I'm talking about is not that it was realistic. It's that despite the game being funny, weird, unsettled, and mostly epic (meaning the game often reminded you that you were playing a game), the game allowed you to do many things but didn't try to show you what couldn't be done leaving it to you imagination.

 

My problem with Fallout3 is this. It tries to show many things that they weren't able to implement despite technology is much more advanced today and Bethesda surely have more budget, and by doing this it breaks itself. The antqueen quest is an example. After finishing the quest, the doctor becomes a brainless junk. I still haven't been able to finish the game due bugs none of which were fixed even by version 1.7 Trying mods the fix bugs and add features that should have been there, and I always get another bug forcing me to restart.

 

I agree partly with your last comment. But the time we played those games for the first time, we didn't think about the shortcomings of them. Think about it this way. Fallout1 and 2 tried something bold. They set a new standard for RPGs. Most of the RPG's today are following their example today in many ways. I think Mass Effect1 and 2 are the games closest to what Fallout 1 and 2 tried to achieve in terms of role playing.

 

Fallout3 has many improvements over the first two in terms of gameplay and graphics of course. It's the Oblivion's physics and engine that's crap. (not graphically but it has an engine demo feel to it and they don't even fix bugs that are years old)

[Tony the Wookie]

Fallout 3 tries to be a lot of different things, so of course it can't be the best, or even good at all of them...

 

You can't expect to have all the great FPS stuff as well as haveing great Meelee combat and also having it be a decent RPG. It is possible in theory, but for a company to pull that off it would be pretty much imposible.

 

You can't expect to have deep characters and story yet at the same time have full customization and control of the ending. You can't expect to have a large depth of characters around the world and have a high standard of dialogue and voice acting for all of them.

 

You can't have a game that is huge and expect every place inside of it to be filled with high quality unique peices. You can't have a game that is as open worlded and replayable with over 60 hours of stuff to do and still expect the polish to be as good as an 8 hour game like Call of Juarez.

 

 

 

When it comes down to it, Fallout isn't the best at everything... Sometimes it isn't even good in some aspects, but the thing is you can't just pick it apart into little peices and say how much better other games were. When you look at the big picture Fallout 3 is great, and one of the top titles I own.

 

Fallout 3 is one of the few games that includes everything I want. And if for that I have to sacrafice the polish of shorter less expansive games to get that, then so be it.

 

 

 

People have absolutly no right to expect more than what they got with Fallout 3, if you don't like it then go play another style of games, but you shouldn't think you are entitled to haveing the most perfect videogame ever made that includes the best features from ever other game out there.

 

Yes, I can name a good 10 games that beat Fallout 3 in every single category, but only one that I can think of that beats it overall. It is just wrong to sit around saying "well game X has better boob mechanics than Fallout" and "game Y has better FPS physics" and "game Z has better story, characters and dialogue" and "game A has more options to roleplay and customize"

 

If what you are looking for is a game that is perfect in every way, you better be willing to pay a whole lot more than 60$ for it, because the time and manpower to produce it would be through the roof. (enough to make Avatar's budget look like an indie film)

[Burbinator]

You can't expect to have all the great FPS stuff as well as haveing great Meelee combat and also having it be a decent RPG. It is possible in theory, but for a company to pull that off it would be pretty much imposible.

 

on the subject of first person rpgs: dark messiah of might and magic was freaking epic. Not a shooter, but the melee combat was extraordinary! the magic system was very fun too, although I didn't play around with it much before my computer got stolen along with the game. The combat system was simply awesome. You could try to do a lunge into the face, instakill but leaves you vulnerable. There are other combos you can do also. Between attacks you can throw in a kick, which costs stamina but can be a very tactical decision. I loved kicking people into fires and then watching them burn. A strong enough attack, or if they're unbalanced, will knock them down and let you do a finisher. You can pick up items, like in oblivion, but also throw them either to distract during stealth or to screw them up during combat (throw a plate at someone's face then follow up with a power slash in the head). It was also a great RPG although not freeform (the only real issue with it).

 

Anyway, that rant is just to show that FO3's combat system doesn't need to be so bad. I don't really understand why it's as clunky as it is. Melee combat is terrible, you can do a power attack or lots of weak attacks. Block occasionally. The most efficient method is just run, hit, backpedla, rinse repeat. It's boring as hell. I'd understand this if it there were more focus on the shooting. But the shooter aspect isn't any better! All the characters strafe like they're on skates. Guns have no recoil, only random bullet spread that makes no sense. This is a huge immersion breaker and just bad gameplay. Seriously, when was the last time you played a shooter without gun recoil? DOOM? Using cover is a huge PITA because you often shoot invisible walls of the object. VATS doesn't add anything to combat except making it more boring. Reloading is a stupid idea because you can switch guns, which takes a fraction of a second, continue firing, then switch back and it's fully loaded again. Or just have two of the same gun and switch back all the time. In general, combat is stupid because you can use as many stims as you want instantly. So long as you hit tab before your hp is completely depleted (and it goes down so slow in vanilla) you'll never die.

 

And then let's look at the RPG part. Shitty perk selection, over half of the perks are useless and there are quite a few overpowered ones. None of them are really interesting. character development choices are meaningless because of poo like "almost perfect", "comprehension", and "educated". Almost perfect means your special choices don't matter. Comprehension or educated mean you can max out all your skills by level 20 at least, you don't even need them with BS. Well, your stats don't even change much. +2 AP per agil? +10 lb per str? Per doesn't even do anything except minor skills/compass display, you can drop it to 1 with hardly any penalties besides perk requirements. The money/item system is another way of character development typical in RPGs. But hey, FO3 screws that up too. The only "unique" unique item is lincoln's repeater, the rest are slightly buffed versions of the regular ones with different names. You cannot upgrade weapons or any of that. Power armor is actually pretty bad in this game, it weighs a ton for a minor stat boost, you can reach max DR/stats with chems/perks easily anyway. Money is ridiculously easy to get, the entire barter system is very easy. Heck, you don't even need to go out to make money. With a high repair/barter skill, you can buy low health items, repair them, and sell for profit. So you really feel no sense of accomplishment for getting money or new items.

 

How about the "roleplaying" part? Well the OP has already shown that choices don't mean crap, really. The blatant black and white karma system makes the game cookie cutter, character choices feel cliched and stereotyped. Hey cool, there's never more than two ways of finishing a quest (evil and bad), if they give you a choice at all. Not to mentoin there's no point in being good or evil, you still get hunted by a faction. The quests where your actions DO have a significant effect are all very badly done. Destroying megaton? No one does that except for cheap laughs, because it's not worth it at all (megaton has more merchants, better located house). Letting ghouls in tenpenny tower? Hey cool, the "good" path involves the betrayal and murder of all the human residents no matter what you do.

 

I'm going to flat out say it, bethesda did a terrible job. There is potential, which I utilize through mods, and through mods FO3 is one of the best games I've played. But vanilla is really, really bad. No offense but I'm not sure how anyone could think it's one of the best games of all time without modifications.

[Tony the Wookie]

You can't expect to have all the great FPS stuff as well as haveing great Meelee combat and also having it be a decent RPG. It is possible in theory, but for a company to pull that off it would be pretty much imposible.

 

on the subject of first person rpgs: dark messiah of might and magic was freaking epic. Not a shooter, but the melee combat was extraordinary! the magic system was very fun too, although I didn't play around with it much before my computer got stolen along with the game. The combat system was simply awesome. You could try to do a lunge into the face, instakill but leaves you vulnerable. There are other combos you can do also. Between attacks you can throw in a kick, which costs stamina but can be a very tactical decision. I loved kicking people into fires and then watching them burn. A strong enough attack, or if they're unbalanced, will knock them down and let you do a finisher. You can pick up items, like in oblivion, but also throw them either to distract during stealth or to screw them up during combat (throw a plate at someone's face then follow up with a power slash in the head). It was also a great RPG although not freeform (the only real issue with it).

 

 

 

The whole point I was trying to make is that you can't expect

 

Game A to be as good as Game B in an area Game B is specializes but is bad in almost every other aspect (like Dark Messiah)

 

as well as being as good as Game C in an area Game C specializes in but has limited other features (Like Call of Juarez)

 

and not expect Game A to have shortcomeing somewhere else.

 

 

Makeing a game is all about compromising based on the size of the team working on it and the amount of time to finish it. If Bethesda had spent their time makeing a complex meele system then they would have had to cut corners somewhere else to make up for the extra time spend of meele. If they had spent more money on better voice actors that would have had less money to higher texture artist or something.

 

If anything Bethesda is simply guilty of trying to do too much with limited time, money, and technology. But if you want a polished but less extensive game then go buy something else.