Sorry...didn't mean to confuse. I was referencing a conversation from another thread about the significance of the stats on gameplay, and how they should affect it (stats affecting gameplay, that is) or they aren't necessary. Also that stat-based RPGs have a place in modern gaming and aren't "old fashioned" or obsolete. Don't let me derail the thread.

who is the buff guy whos your avatar? haha omg he is beefy!

I miss turn based games that were good, final fantasy 4 comes to mind.

Happens all the time, and these games are good as anything to blow 30 minutes on. That's probably why they're popular- most people don't sit there for 1 hour or more gaming. Hell, if Fallout 3 wanted to be that, I could have respected it for what it was, but it was indecisive and tried to stay in the middle ground. The FPS mechanics were poor and the RPG mechanics were poor, but the exploration and some stuff were well done. I like to think that a focus on RPG or FPS would result in a better game. I think that Obsidian has a history with RPGs, and they might make the RPG mechanics better. Then again, NV has iron sights, so what am I complaining about?



Each stat carries more weight. In Fallout 3 you just had to max int and get decent strength. The rest of your stats didn't matter except for perk selection.

Surprisingly, I found Endurance to be a useful stat. Granted, there's a bountiful amount of stimpacks in the DC Wasteland, but all the times I've played with extremely low endurance, I've had situations where I've been absolutely [censored] in terms of combat.

Well, the agility thing is more because it was turned based and action points meant a lot more in turned based than real time. As far as the conversations go I thought Beth did a good job of them and they were on par with the original. Im sorry but people make out the dialogue in FO1&2 to be this awe inspiring, every-line-is-a-classic, thing when I only found there to be a couple great lines and the rest were standard convo lines. Besides Beth did more of a bonus for speeches rather than penalties, and yes i thought they could have done more of them (speech options based on SPECIAL stats)



To me a RPG is based around stats, it is what distinguishes it from a FPS. Sure in a FPS you take on the "role" of a character, so you could call it an RPG, but we don't because one of the distinguishing factors of a RPG is the fact that they do have stats.




Its a Resistance fighter from Splash Damages upcoming game Brink.

I think you've heard wrong.

People don't praise the content of Fallout 1 and 2's writing as much as the fact that nearly every important character was given quite a hefty dialogue tree with various outcomes at the end that would play a significant role in whatever you were doing at the moment.

Fallout 3 has glimpses of that, but there could have been a lot more.

Its a Resistance fighter from Splash Damages upcoming game Brink.
[/quote]
looks like vin diesel lol

weird i never played the older ones in depth what do you mean by a dialogue tree?

Now don't get mad because I dont have much experience with FO1 but I do remember putting my Intelligence and Agility as high as possible and basically being a god in the game from the start. So how does that differ?



THat may be true as well but I distinctly remember getting into quite a few debates over this when I posted heavily in the FO3 section. Every time dialogue came up it was how I described it. People praised the [censored] out of the dialogue from FO1 and bashed it from FO3. And not just because of all the different options but because of how all the lines were "classics"

I prefer to believe that disagreement is the core of all discourse. It is kind of pointless to discuss something when you all have the exact same view point. I'm here to partake of the view points that others formulate on issues like this.
The benefits of Obsidian over Bethesda. Obsidian has some of the original writers and creators of Fallout and a lot of people feel that brings it closer to the roots and heritage of the original games. I don't see this as being particularly relevant. Fallout was an incredible game but it is being developed by Obsidian and not Interplay. The company has changed and isn't the entity it once was. Treat them as the company they are instead of what they partially grew from. After all, people change doc.
Beyond that, both companies have great reputations and lists of great games that have been produced. Morrowind is still a god among games in my mind and I'll always love Bethesda even if they start producing generic copies of the same game over and over again and again for the next 10 years (kind of like what Capcom has been doing with Street Fighter for years... Honestly Street Fighter 4 is less fun than Street Fighter 2 and they are just about the same game. Only with uglier characters, slower gameplay, only famous characters and characters that make no sense, aaaarrrrrgggggggg). ... but that is Capcom XD lol. Obsidian's game list is nothing but games I have fell in love with. Almost took KOTOR 2 into my bed once. My girlfriend made me put it back on the shelf v_v. I look forward to anything Obsidian produces like a love sick puppy (have been waiting patiently for Alpha Protocol since I pre-ordered in August of last year. Almost cried when it was delayed)

Bethesda's greatest attribute is in the creation of game engines that allow for the quick creation of these great worlds for the player to move through. Morrowind was the best example of this (I really felt like I could go anywhere and do anything). Obsidian's greatest attribute is within story and just awesome idea's. I believe that the mixture of Bethesda's engine with Obsidian's ideas should produce something incredible. Of course, you would think that since ice cream tastes great and steak tastes great then putting steak through the process of making ice cream would make something incredible right? ... I do wonder XD

So how would you want the dialogue written,

lets say you were on the development team and worked with the script writing?

I have no idea who you were talking to, but apparently they were focusing on the wrong things when trying to construct their arguments.

Fallout 3 has good dialogue, it's just tight and not as branching or expansive as what was found in Fallout 1 and 2, actual quality of the words aside. I think this is due mostly to the use of voice acting for -all- characters. It's much easier to write hundreds of lines of dialogue than it is to get an actor in the studio to recite each one.

Not that I'm saying that Fallout 1 had the best, most balanced RPG system (my criticisms of Fallout 3's RPG system are not based on an opinion that Fallout 1's was perfect...far from it), but what you're describing hasn't been my experience with it. One thing I will say the older Fallout games did a better job of is forcing character development choices, which I like.


Yeah, I think that the quality of Fallout 1's dialog is oft-exaggerated. I did, however, find Fallout 1 and 2's characters to be a bit more memorable than those of Fallout 3. They also provided a bit more to talk about, which may have had something to do with it.

The stats affected more, is what I mean. Don't get me wrong, they were unbalanced with agility being godly. When you played as an intelligent character, you got more dialogue options (they just weren't marked [Intelligence]). Charisma was used in unmarked speech checks (some of which you didn't get unless your intelligence wasn't high enough) and was responsible for the number of companions you could get in the second game. Strength was of limited use due to Power Armor, but it was still more important than in Fallout 3 because you needed a prerequisite strength to wield a weapon. It also affected your melee and unarmed damage much more. Perception was vital in order to shoot with great accuracy- 100% skill with 5 perception and 100% skill with 8 perception were worlds apart. Endurance svcked, but you could die really easily from a stray crit if it was too low. Luck was awesome for criticals, especially with the sniper perk.



It's not so much the writing as it is the breadth of options. Unlocking a certain piece of dialogue got you some reward, quests were well made and had multiple solutions with multiple results. It was just a well made game and highly enjoyable. When something is one's favourite, it's hard not to overstate its strengths and understate its weaknesses. That said, the writing was still not bad, especially compared to Fallout 3 (which also had its moments).

My point is the two games are not so different from each other and that people like to try and build a rift between the two because they are either "Ol' Skool" fans (and therefore somehow better because they were there from the start) or they are "New Skool" fans (who are somehow better because FO3 is the epitome of an RPG).

That said:

Yes, the dialogue could have been better, and I believe that it will be improved in FO:NV. If I were writing for FO:NV I would be putting in options. Different ways to take conversations and different ways to complete quests. I would defiantly try and make it "real" in the way that it is a post-apocalyptic world and people are just eking out an existence (some doing a better job at it than others) and I believe the dialogue (and world/gameplay) should represent that.

You've got it. That's exactly what I've been saying, but in different words.

Who would be stupid enough to max INT when you only needed 5 to get wherever you wanted? And don't pretend Charisma wasn't the most valued stat in Fallout 1 or 2 because it allowed you to build an insurmountable combat team.

Obi Wan Kenobi should make a cameo in fallout as a hermit living in the outskirts of vegas.

What does that have to do with this thread?

For roleplaying purposes and for seeing what would happen with different dialogue options.



Except a lot of players, myself included, rarely bothered with the companions at all.

thought I'd get a laugh sorry....

I think the best advantage does not come with it being Obsidian that is making FO:NV but that fact that they have taken the opportunity to listen to us fans and take what was loved about all the FO games and what we thought needed improvement and be able to apply that to FO:NV. That alone is gonna make it a highly enjoyable game.

You have zero cause to complain. You have absolutely no right to anything. You should get down on your hands and knees and thank the people involved here for even bothering to make more Fallout games rather than make unfair comparisons to a style of gaming that is never going to sell another copy and would leave your two "classics" to be forgotten.

Wow, this thread didn't take too long to get kind of ugly. Seems to be back to a more civil tone than the past three pages, so I won't go into great depth on some of these things (and there's a couple quotes I've decided not to respond to, because it's not going to help matters, either...) But still, I get to have my two cents:

How about this, instead: I like what I like, for my own reasons, and people can stop jumping around like crazy every time they hear a contrary opinion on these boards. I'm still here because the Bethesda forums have what I still think is one of the best moderated, and most interesting, community I've seen in some time. Yeah, there have been some around here who have actually said "Wah! I dismiss everything about Fallout 3 because it's not isometric and turn-based, and it's made by a company I don't like!" But look around some time - the vast majority of those posters have moved on. There might two or three posters who I see show up on occasion just to ruin the party, but I haven't seen them in this thread yet; and for the most part those of us who just so happen to have a more critical eye will also freely admit that there were a number of things they (and I) did enjoy about Fallout 3; and that it's worth the effort of (strange thought, this, I know) improving it.

Heck, I'm playing through Fallout 3 right now. (Well, not right now right now, obviously...) It's a fun game. But I also don't buy into the view that it's mana direct from the gods, perfect in every way, and beyond reproach. It has some issues. Things could be made better. I could say the same for Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. If someone else had made Fallout 3, I can guarantee you I'd be picking holes in that game, too.

I am very interested to go lurk over at NMA after the release to see if their response. It is what they have been crying for for a looooooong time now

No. No it's not.

Let's be clear about this, here. What even the most rabid "old-school" Fallout fan has been "crying" for is not Bethesda's vision of Fallout 3, but done by a different company, and taking place in another locale.

I'm looking forward to New Vegas. I think it looks like it'll be pretty good. There's some good ideas that it looks like they're adding into the game. I'm all for that. And of course, it helps that some of the old team is lending a hand at this. How could that not be a plus? If they resurrected Gene Roddenberry and got him to direct a new Star Trek movie, I wouldn't exactly be worried about how he was going to "ruin" J.J. Abram's version of the franchise...

Anyway, I don't want this to get rabid again, but there were some things I just couldn't help but respond to (and this is me holding back on commenting about RPG mechanics in a roleplaying game are somehow vestiges of some stone-age past, even though they're a part of the game that we're talking about... ) I poke at Fallout 3 because I want it to be a better game, because it has the potential to be much better. Most of these, admittedly, are because Bethesda essentially started from scratch instead of building on lessons already learned from the first two games. The sequel is generally going to be improved over the original (that's kind of the idea at least.)

New Vegas isn't that sequel, sure - but that doesn't mean that I can't hope for some incremental improvements and refinements. Obsidian working on New Vegas isn't, from the point of view of an old fan, going to inherently make it "better" than anything Bethesda could have done. But it still looks like it's going to be a good game, with some key improvements upon Bethesda's framework. It's a frakkin' win/win people...