lol!!! :clap:

The karma system has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's bewildering to me that you brought it up. Blowing up a city in Fallout 3 has some pretty obvious consequences independent of karma. Again, I'm not arguing that there should be no consequences, or that everyone should act in the same manner.

But I'll agree entirely that Obisdian has a different concept of the series, and that I don't like their approach at all. And based on this, and Alpha Protocol before it, I can't imagine ever buying anything else they make. I have no confidence in their design choices, and technically, their recent games have had serious issues.

no, beyond three dog ranting on you, there's no effect at all, no effect on the mq, you can still do all the side quests.
and of course it has something to do with what you're saying.
you are demanding a game design that allows you to reverse the effects of your decisions at any time, so that you're not feeling like having wasted your time. because when the game turns into a direction you didn't want it to, you're feeling demotivated.
and when obsidian doesn't allow you to forge an alliance between 2 hardlining fundamentalists, be it as unrealisitc as it would be, then obsidian made dubious desing decisions, ok.
look people have different reasons for playing games. some are looking for an endless cascade of successes (i'd see you in this camp), some others are willing to let the game surprise the player, with the chance of negative experiences.
i for myself also had to live with an ending i mostly didn't like, when i took the ncr route the first time. but that doesn't mean i didn't enjoy it. it was actually the opposite, it gave me real incentive to do things differently next time, and screw the ncr as hard as possible

I'm not demanding 'game design that allows you to reverse the effects of your decisions', nor do I want 'an endless cascade of successes'. I'm completely comfortable with making hard, lasting decisions where the consequences follow from the choice at hand. I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer. I want the game's choices to be laid out with mostly forseeable effects. You keep suggesting I'm saying otherwise. I don't know how else to dissuade you of the notion. Some of my favorite games include harsh choices with long-lasting consequences: Mass Effect, Fire Emblem with its permanent death, etc.

And again, I'm not trying to 'forge an alliance' between all relevant factions. There's a big difference between forging an alliance and completely destroying a settlement and all its people. I want to avoid the latter, specifically. I also disagree with the notion that other than on the radio, there are no consequences to destroying a city in Fallout 3.

But at this point, just send me a PM if you want to continue this discussion. I've said what I mean to say about the Brotherhood-NCR dilemma several times over here, and other people are apparently also finding this problematic. I don't think this back-and-forth between you and me is adding anything constructive to the forum.

yeah, so that you won't make a wrong move, only blatantly clear alternatives. no mistakes, only successes, you're just confirming, what i was assuming
i find that to be ...boring




no you want just "a temporary alliance" between 2 factions you consider as cool, ignoring their history, so that you can still go the ncr path and have the bos as friends, even with that male version of col. moore on the other side.
the ncr and the brotherhood are portrayed as arch enemies, and you are just not willing to accept that.

Again, I have no problem with the choices offered being difficult, and each having significant drawbacks. Being forced to decide between hard alternatives is fine.

And again, simply not having to kill an entire faction is fine with me, regardless of any temporary or lasting alliance. The NCR and Brotherhood can continue to hate each other and say unflattering things about each other or break out in battles with each other all they want; I just don't want to be forced to kill the Brotherhood in order to help the NCR. I don't think it should be an all-or-nothing choice. There's leeway in the other similar quests in dealing with factions.

I really think you should just send PMs at this point. I don't think this is adding anything meaningful to this thread.

i don't see the need to discuss that privately, as we are on topic.
but i do see us not coming together.
obsidian made the decision not allowing you to have your desired outcome, regardless how you were acting in the leadership issue, and you are not happy with that.
furthermore, obsidian did not have hardin approaching you and saying "hi, i'm hardin, and if you help me usurping mcnamara, there won't be an agreement with ncr 50h later in the game"
i, for myself like exactly that.
you enter this bunker not knowing anybody, and are promptly asked to play a central part in a revolution. did you never even consider the possibility this might have a significant effect?
regardless, i did the right thing here, but made other choices, were i had to face later consequences i didn't like at all.
bringing the khans to help at the dam, for example. or influencing boone in a manner, that caused a very tragic and sad mentioning at the end.
in a certain way, i screwed that up. but i'm glad for the game allowing me to make such mistakes, to have elements that remain unforeseeable. you can't be always right.
for me, that makes the experience compelling and motivating.
i can do better next time, or at least trying.
and in the very end, i'll probably have to realize, whatever i'll be doing, there'll never be my secretly wished fairy tale ending, where all my beloved will live long and prosperous.
because war, war never changes
big props to obsidian for taking this approach, as this more than rare in nowadays games

What's more awesome for a power-hungry nut than to keep the guy who used to have your position around, just to remind him of what he lost an you gained?

Hardin actually tells you that holding HELIOS One was a mistake, why would he want to retake it?

Dang it meant to edit my previous post instead of double post. Sorry.

Just destroy the brotherhood.. after those narrow mined techno terrorists destroyed the followers of the apocalypse base, i wanna burn every last one of em....

other than that, they all owe mcnamara their bloody lives. you can't just humiliate such a person if you want to keep your folks' trust

I totally agree that we won't ever see eye to eye on this issue. We may be on topic, but we're going in circles. I keep reiterating my points and declaring I don't want to have perfect control or unlimited chains of success, but that I do want clarity and degrees of freedom in making tough decisions. And then you keep reiterating your point and suggesting that whatever I'm saying only further confirms your notion that I want perfect control and unlimited chains of success.

So when you write, 'you enter this bunker not knowing anybody, and are promptly asked to play a central part in a revolution. did you never even consider the possibility this might have a significant effect?' My answer is, of course, going to be that yes, I did expect it to have significant effects, and that I wanted it to have impact, but that the effects were quite a bit different from what were reasonable to expect, based on my experiences to that point. (And I would never have expected or wanted the clarification to take the form of a speech like, '"hi, i'm hardin, and if you help me usurping mcnamara, there won't be an agreement with ncr 50h later in the game."' I don't think anything I've said so far suggests that was my expectation, but if it did, allow me to disabuse you of the notion.) And you'll probably counter with something along the lines that this a good thing, whereas I clearly don't think it is.

You like Obsidian's choices in the matter. You're not alone in that. I don't. And I'm definitely not alone in this, based on this thread and several others like it. I don't think that makes me or any of the other people who disagree with you control freaks who just want to live in utopia, hug everyone all the time and make friendship bracelets. We're invested in the series and care about it, which is why we're bothering to post our concerns here in the first place. It's clear you're invested in the game, too, albeit from a different angle. Our disagreement is understandable, but at this point, we're just beating a dead horse.

@ theslynx: Did you do the Tenpenny Tower ghoul quest in FO3? And if so, how did you feel about it?

I may be annoyed or angered by unintended consequences, but I actually like when they happen (so it's a good kind of annoyed or angered).

I did do it. I don't remember it as a highlight, but I enjoyed it while it played out. I don't really remember the consequences being tough to predict on that one, but it's been a while.

Side quests or secondary campaigns with somewhat self-contained impact seem like a better place for murky decisions with weird effects, if that's something the developers want to include.

That, of course, is why Hardin needs the Courier to come forward with the evidence rather than presenting it himself.

After you solved the quest the "peaceful/good way" the ghouls murdered all the human residents in the tower.

Oh. I think I let the ghouls in via a gate, and it was pretty clear they had bad intentions at the time.

I guess your way would have been a bit surprising.

cause it's pretty contradicting to rant about an somewhat unpredictable element over and over again while claiming at same time to by no means asking for full control of your choices.
you keep reiterating your point that all your choices have to be ones with predictable outcomes, what else should one think?
sorry to say that, but to me, that's typical for a control freak



so, what have you been expecting then?
and, what do you mean with "based on my experiences to that point"? didn't you state you happened to come across the bos at a very early stage in the game?
doesn't this imply your "experiences" must have been pretty limited at that point in time?

There's a big difference between arguing a point and ranting. At any rate, a generalised predictability and 'full control' aren't the same thing. If you're faced with a choice with several less-than-perfect solutions, you're hardly getting everything you want. Sometimes you have to take losses, even if you choose carefully. I'm fine with that, but I want to have the stakes and choices fairly clear - at least in video games. I've said repeatedly that I'm okay with hard choices like that.

As for the experiences being limited, I had exhausted all conversation options with everyone I could find in the Bunker before I made any decisions regarding the power struggle. I was generally aware that the Brotherhood and NCR had been enemies in the past, but that the Brotherhood was in hiding at that point after retreating from the solar facility. I don't think there was any more pertinent information to glean in regards to the decision about the power struggle without jumping online to figure out what the long-term implications would be. (Which, incidentally, is probably what a control freak would have done.) If more information was available after the decision, it's irrelevant simply because it would be unavailable to when the decision had to be made.

As for what I was expecting, I believe I already said (might have been in a different thread) that Hardin seemed more inclined to want an engaged Brotherhood, and that he seemed more open to new ideas. I made the choice hoping to help Veronica in her quest, and to help the members who were upset about the continued lockdown.

So, theslynx, you basically want the quest to have options on how to be done? Like, do some quests for Hardin to make him listen to you, for example? Like for the Khans. Won't work, cause Hardin has so much sнit between his ears. And Moore is like that also. They both JUST WON'T ACCEPT anything but their ways. They are just like that, and you have to deal with it.

And also... why are you expecting a game character to not lie to you? The consiquences of your descisions was unpredictible BECAUSE Hardin wasn't actually honest with you. Just like others would do in his place: lie to get as much people on their side as possible.

And why NCR wants BoS to be destroyed. Because it's a threat. Like the Mr.House. No other way around.

In the very beginning of the game, near Goodsprings, there's a guy that asks you to help his wife surrounded with geckos. He wasn't actually honest with you, was he? And you had no choice in the end? Is it OK in your book?

sometimes the absence of information, is information.
true, you couldn't exactly foresee that. but to me, he was suspicious from the beginning.
firstly, i was pretty surprised to be asked for such a delicate thing as a total stranger. that's pretty much a confession of lacking internal support.
then the folks over there didn't really seem to be in a revolutionary mood, and the security chief reacted rather stressed out when asking for the issue.
the only person convinced he'd be the better elder was hardin himself.
furthermore, mcnamara left a good first impression for me. he acknowledged me for favoring the tongue over the gun to get rid of the ranger.
so i just decided to wait and see how it pans out, and tadaaa, it didn't take mcnamara long to open the doors

I don't think it's going to help answering your post point-by-point, other than to say that yes, I do want alternate ways of doing quests, and that, no, I don't like the constrained, pigeonholed approach the end game takes. This isn't because I don't understand what the NCR and Brotherhood want, or anything of that sort. With that understanding, I still don't like the design choices here.

As to the Goodsprings event, there's a sizable difference between a small, unmarked side quest and decisions that reverberate significantly through to the game's ending.

It's great that you enjoyed these design choices by Obisdian. I didn't, and several other people have also suggested as much on the forum in multiple threads. I doubt we're going to come to any better understanding than that our preferences differ quite a bit.

I didn't have any dealings with a ranger; this might have been because I came to the bunker early on, without it being part of any faction quest. I just wandered around with Veronica and stumbled upon it. My first impressions of McNamara weren't as positive, since he refused to listen to anything and kept referring to protocol, while the people around him complained about his decisions. It's entirely possible our dialogue options were different because of the way we came to the bunker, and that our impressions of the two men were bound to be appreciably different as a result.

I definately feel for you and your situation. I just completed this part of the game last night and i must say that when i was deciding between Harden and McNamara I thought Harden was the right choice for my NCR idolized character but had a "feeling" something was wrong. I did not want to wipe them out, i wanted to have them help the NCR. So I have to admit i cheated. I looked online as to how the coice would play out and when i heard that if you keep Harden in charge there was no chance at a comprimise I was suprised. So i kept McNamara and worked out a truce and comprimised. If i had done what the OP has done (and that was my first thought) and gotten stuck with having to wipe out the BoS or betraying the NCR I would have been PISSED!!!!! Either of those options would have gone totally against the RPG element of the character I'm playing

I just want to know your oppinion, how you think this particular problem may be solved, and that's all. I'm not trying to convince you with something (god help me if I was that arrogant). Sorry if I made you think this way, it wasn't intended.