Fallout3 Shortcomings & your ideas

[ancalimonungol]

So you don't care about the limitations of the engine, the money, the publisher, you just WANT it. It's like asking your mom to turn the loaf of bread into a lump of gold. And no matter how your mom tries to explain it's NOT POSSIBLE, you stubbornly keep screaming for something impossible to be done. And don't think playing games makes you know the game creating process. Just because I read a few tips on how to play football doesn't mean I can play it like a pro straight away.

 

Of course I don't care about those things. I'm just a customer who wants to have fun with the game. I don't think about the limitations of the engine, how much money they earned from Fallout3 sales, or anything like that. It's up to the game makers to fix the engine using some of the money they earned from selling the game. I just want some basic things that I got from many games that were made before. There is nothing impossible about things I'd like to see.

 

If there weren't people like me, Quake would have been a bad copy of Doom running on the same engine. I don't understand why people keep saying things like "It's not possible to have normal hair in this game!!!", "It's not possible to have proper conversations in this game", "It's not possible to have a better animation system in this game, all you should get is the running forward animation"

 

how can people be this easily satisfied?

 

Do these things seem impossible to you? Do you think the engine can not be improved any further?

[evilneko]

I think I might have actually enjoyed Quake if it had been running on the Doom engine. Sure it was an evolutionary step forward in FPS engines. It was just ugly as hell.

[Skotte]

I think I might have actually enjoyed Quake if it had been running on the Doom engine. Sure it was an evolutionary step forward in FPS engines. It was just ugly as hell.

 

I agree, Quake was ugly as all get out, to me it always felt like a testbed for Id's tech & I too like Doom more but I did like quake as well.

 

@ancalimonungol, ok you just want fun? just like everybody else, but here's a couple things

 

1- "Fun" is different for everybody, some like adding mods that remove VATS add requirements to eat, sleep & drink (not fun to me) no offense intended for those that find that enjoyable.

 

2- video games are a business & as such a lot of developers have a deadline to make the games & I don't believe anybody can get away with developing a game over a decade before release

[olafreinhardweyer]

It's impossible is how microsoft never got started,

it's impossible is how google forever stayed in private garage,

it's impossible is how we never set foot on the moon,

it's impossible is how we walk the line of underachievement always having an excuse for it.

 

Me, i don't achieve much, but it's not because it's impossible. I am lazy and I like it that way.

 

So you don't care about the limitations of the engine, the money, the publisher, you just WANT it. It's like asking your mom to turn the loaf of bread into a lump of gold. And no matter how your mom tries to explain it's NOT POSSIBLE, you stubbornly keep screaming for something impossible to be done. And don't think playing games makes you know the game creating process. Just because I read a few tips on how to play football doesn't mean I can play it like a pro straight away.

 

Of course I don't care about those things. I'm just a customer who wants to have fun with the game. I don't think about the limitations of the engine, how much money they earned from Fallout3 sales, or anything like that. It's up to the game makers to fix the engine using some of the money they earned from selling the game. I just want some basic things that I got from many games that were made before. There is nothing impossible about things I'd like to see.

 

If there weren't people like me, Quake would have been a bad copy of Doom running on the same engine. I don't understand why people keep saying things like "It's not possible to have normal hair in this game!!!", "It's not possible to have proper conversations in this game", "It's not possible to have a better animation system in this game, all you should get is the running forward animation"

 

how can people be this easily satisfied?

 

Do these things seem impossible to you? Do you think the engine can not be improved any further?

[ecksile]

Nothings impossible just in this case its not rational. The gaming industry cares more about money then customer their more worried about the money they're gonna make. Look at how many games have started coming out after movie releases. And lets not forget that if a gaming company makes a really AWESOME GAME with all this super polished glamor and shine. Then in the next release it will have to go above and beyond the last release if they put all their eggs in one basket they wouldn't be able to do the next release without difficulty sure some games don't really need anything new added when they are already great MGS and Resident Evil (the ones with zombies) but if you don't have anything new then there's always the chance that game wont pick up which means low sales which means less money and no producer wants that. It is a double edged sword because sometimes to much new stuff can break the already setup normality and expectations for the game and pull people out of it which will also make the game suffer. Look at Shenmue for Dreamcast the first release was amazing and had one of the biggest budgets for a video game the second release wasn't so great and didn't really pick up even though there weren't that many changes, because of that they are pondering if they wanna do a third. Bottom line is its all business and money. Once you eliminate the budget limitations and the time constraints then you will have that great video game. The only problem with that is because of the ever expanding technology after a couple years they will have to do an engine/model/texture update and etc etc...and then it will just loop like that and never get finished just like Duke Nukem Forever. Finally lets not forget that unlike Sega Saturn and Nintendo its becoming more and more difficult to impress people as ideas become less original and technology expectations become greater, cost for creation goes up. I completely agree with ancalimonungol and i think that this stuff should be polished and the customers wishes should come first before a games release seeing as how they are the game company's life line, but its never gonna happen as long as making money is involved. There's always gonna be consumers. Its just unrealistic to expect that much perfection. Then that's where modding comes into play. But i do believe that if they are gonna release modification tools and allow us to modify their games they should make it as easy as possible and reduce the limitations as much as possible. So that we can improve on where they fall short. I wonder if you can request things to be include for the next game/GECK patch?

[ecksile]

OO i got another shortcoming how bout all the random corruption of save games. I ran into one today. I Load up a save but i cant exit the building I'm in or even manually save my game because it ctd upon saving. xD

[Burbinator]

I think I might have actually enjoyed Quake if it had been running on the Doom engine. Sure it was an evolutionary step forward in FPS engines. It was just ugly as hell.

 

I agree, Quake was ugly as all get out, to me it always felt like a testbed for Id's tech & I too like Doom more but I did like quake as well.

 

@ancalimonungol, ok you just want fun? just like everybody else, but here's a couple things

 

1- "Fun" is different for everybody, some like adding mods that remove VATS add requirements to eat, sleep & drink (not fun to me) no offense intended for those that find that enjoyable.

 

2- video games are a business & as such a lot of developers have a deadline to make the games & I don't believe anybody can get away with developing a game over a decade before release

 

It's like asking your mom to turn the loaf of bread into a lump of gold. And no matter how your mom tries to explain it's NOT POSSIBLE, you stubbornly keep screaming for something impossible to be done.

 

You guys are missing the point. Ancali is specifically focusing on aspects of the game that are flawed even though games that predate it by many years are obviously better in those areas. While it is understandable that you can't improve every area everywhere, he doesn't see the reason in taking a step BACKWARDS. And I pretty much agree with him. Obviously bethesda isn't going to rip the same physics engine or whatever that vampire masquerade uses, but similar techniques have been developed so long ago that it seems silly that they aren't implemented in a much newer and much larger budget game. Of course, I'm not a game developer and there are always unforeseen complications. But it's still annoying to see a game actually regress in its capabilities compared to the rest of the industry.

[olafreinhardweyer]

Well, i must give in, this was a balanced view about things, especially with Fallout3. Other than with the Elder Scrolls Series, they sure were less certain that it would be a success. It has been though and it seems likely that they now believe it's prequels will be too. Perhaps the move with Obsidian is allready a sign of that they are willing to improve. I believe this step to be mainly out of resources, because they want to concentrate on Elder Scrolls - but still:

It is a sign they believe in Fallout and they did not just choose anybody, they chose Quality People

(no matter how bad the Vegas Teaser Video is).

We will be smarter, when the next Elder Scrolls will have given us, what some people demand here.

And also lets hope, the not to recent failure of

Gothic 3, which just killed all the series stood for

for the benefit of better graphics is a reminder not

only for them but also to other publishers. Stray from your strengths and your other accomplishments will mean nothing (as a selling point). Now it can be argued, Bethesdas strenght are good (worldspace) graphics. Just let us remind them, it's good storytelling too (Morrowind).

 

 

 

Nothings impossible just in this case its not rational. The gaming industry cares more about money then customer their more worried about the money they're gonna make. Look at how many games have started coming out after movie releases. And lets not forget that if a gaming company makes a really AWESOME GAME with all this super polished glamor and shine. Then in the next release it will have to go above and beyond the last release if they put all their eggs in one basket they wouldn't be able to do the next release without difficulty sure some games don't really need anything new added when they are already great MGS and Resident Evil (the ones with zombies) but if you don't have anything new then there's always the chance that game wont pick up which means low sales which means less money and no producer wants that. It is a double edged sword because sometimes to much new stuff can break the already setup normality and expectations for the game and pull people out of it which will also make the game suffer. Look at Shenmue for Dreamcast the first release was amazing and had one of the biggest budgets for a video game the second release wasn't so great and didn't really pick up even though there weren't that many changes, because of that they are pondering if they wanna do a third. Bottom line is its all business and money. Once you eliminate the budget limitations and the time constraints then you will have that great video game. The only problem with that is because of the ever expanding technology after a couple years they will have to do an engine/model/texture update and etc etc...and then it will just loop like that and never get finished just like Duke Nukem Forever. Finally lets not forget that unlike Sega Saturn and Nintendo its becoming more and more difficult to impress people as ideas become less original and technology expectations become greater, cost for creation goes up. I completely agree with ancalimonungol and i think that this stuff should be polished and the customers wishes should come first before a games release seeing as how they are the game company's life line, but its never gonna happen as long as making money is involved. There's always gonna be consumers. Its just unrealistic to expect that much perfection. Then that's where modding comes into play. But i do believe that if they are gonna release modification tools and allow us to modify their games they should make it as easy as possible and reduce the limitations as much as possible. So that we can improve on where they fall short. I wonder if you can request things to be include for the next game/GECK patch?

[ancalimonungol]

 

 

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.

 

 

Then how did they make the previous Fallout games so that every single human and creature in the game could be killed and still you had a way to finish the game? The impressive part was that for every place on map you killed an important person, the ending of the game would change. (ie you killed the slaver leader, ending changes. You commit a genocide in a village, the ending changes, etc..)

 

There is an extremely easy workaround to hide this design fault. Whenever you see a character that shouldn't be killed, a cutscene could kick in and after the cut scene, that character would not be around so we wouldn't try to kill that character. Ever thought of that?

 

 

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.

 

All I see in the game are healthy people wondering, falling from high places, entering radiated water, trying to walk towards each other showing the moon walking animation, etc. (Apart from the guy that is thirsty and gives me infinite karma) You could even fool people that this game was Grand Theft Auto 4 if it used the same physics engine. The world is dead even by Fallout standards. I don't see children running around, I don't see drug addicts dosing in the streets. This is a M rated game, why not polish it a little? This is a "ROLE PLAYING" game.

[evilneko]

I had a response all typed addressing what you said, but then I remembered you don't care, so I deleted it.

 

Instead, I'll just say this: Being able to take cover, aim, and not have a cruel roll of the dice decide my fate (ie: the switch to F/TPS) is far, far more immersive than standing one tile away from an enemy and missing 9 out of 10 times. That alone makes Fallout 3 a hundred fold more enjoyable than any previous Fallout game. And despite its flaws, it's still one of the best damned games I've seen or played in a good long while.

 

http://webbstuff.net/evilneko/trollsuccesful.jpg