The Place Where Fallout Purists Whine

[apsham]

So let's ignore that shit thing and like this awesome thing.

[tristy]

Some of the FO3 DLC was amazing (The Pitt), and some of it was hit and miss (OA and Point Lookout), while some of it was dogshit (Zeta). This looks, so far from the ghosts that shoot freaking lazer beams from their foreheads, like one for the dogshit pile, but I have a PC so I'll have time for them to prove me wrong.

You think the Pitt was amazing, and Operation Anchorage was "hit and miss"? I'm really starting to doubt your opinion on things. And, ghosts with laser beams? Because, in a world full of mutated sharks that walk upright, giant green monsters and ants the size of Buicks, ghosts with laser beams is the one thing that's dogshit.

Right. Why don't you just go play Fallout 1 and 2 and reminiscence about the old days when Fallout didn't have DOGSHIT characters like ghosts that shoot laser beams, and just had Deathclaws and whatnot.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[OctoberRaven]

Deathclaws are mutated chameleons, not mutated sharks.

Also, Point Lookout was pretty fucking awesome IMO. Desolate port city, crazy drug trip sequence, and Desmond FUCKING Lockhart.

[apsham]

The Pitt was rather amazing - Operation Anchorage was the only entirely shit DLC to me, because it was boring as fuck and only served to provide the Chinese Sneaking Suit which is the only reason that anyone should ever have for playing through that travesty.

[LL!]

So let's ignore that shit thing and like this awesome thing.

So, let me get this straight. You thought that DLC video was shit, but this is good?

No.

[OctoberRaven]

Could be worse. It could star Colin Ferrel as the Courier and feature Ashton Kutcher as Caesar.

[SeanDMan]

You think the Pitt was amazing

Of the Fallout 3 DLCs? Yes. The setting was very well done, with great landscaping and set construction, and the main plotline was one that involved choice and consequence and a moral/ethical dilemna. Sure, it was a simple one ("ends justify the means") but the majority of Fallout 3's choice and consequences was not of a moral variety but rather what sort of ammunition to blast the ogres with. So by the measuring stick laid out, The Pitt was a huge step forward.

Too short and not enough sidequests, but worth the price of admission.

and Operation Anchorage was "hit and miss"?

Operation Anchorage, meanwhile, was a linear shooter on rails. And as if that wasn't bad enough, it seems like it was written by a retarded child who was repeatedly dipped in paint thinner during the process. That is perhaps best summed up by it's conclusion:

"You American Pig Dogs will convert to communism, or DIE!"

"Actually, you should kill yourself."

"k."

I give this DLC one big universe destroying black hole of negativity out of five stars.

I'm really starting to doubt your opinion on things.

Whereas you have previously established you have shit taste in most things.

And, ghosts with laser beams?

Ghosts with laser beams, yes. They are retarded.

Because, in a world full of mutated sharks that walk upright, giant green monsters and ants the size of Buicks, ghosts with laser beams is the one thing that's dogshit.

So your defense of retarded design choices is to defend them with retarded design choices? Well, isn't that novel. You must have the worlds biggest fanboyrection for Uwe Boll then.

Right. Why don't you just go play Fallout 1 and 2 and reminiscence about the old days when Fallout didn't have DOGSHIT characters like ghosts that shoot laser beams, and just had Deathclaws and whatnot.

So you say that instead of bemoaning bad decisions in games today, we should just play old games? That's stupid. There's no reason games of today can't be just as good as old games. I really enjoyed New Vegas; I thought the writing was good, the openness of the quests was good, the world development was good. It wasn't flawless, but it was miles better than Fallout 3. I'm not sitting here and taking a shit on everyone involved with this game and wanting to rape and pillage their families because this isn't a 2D Isometric dice based game, I just think that there is no reason to include things that break the setting.

The setting of the game, since you obviously don't understand it, is a retrofuturistic view of what life would be like based on the culture and the times of the 1950s in America. In that time, their view of what would happen when things were exposed to radiation included things like this, this, and this. So there is nothing wrong with the inclusion of gigantic insects and beasts who have been created through radiation. It fits the setting. Ghosts who shoot laser beams out of their foreheads, however, does not fit the setting. Moreover, it's retarded. Moreover, YOU'RE retarded for defending it, and just really showing you have no concept of things LIKE a games setting. If you just want things that are COOL and LULZ and FUNZ, then fine, but you're an idiot and expect for other people to treat you like an idiot. There is no reason a game can't have a believable and interesting, cohesive setting, just because you're too busy licking the drool off your controller to notice it. There ARE adult gamers, afterall. There's no reason that games should be designed for children like you.

[Colly]

So the aliens are fine but the ghosts aren't?

[SeanDMan]

...can you people even fucking read.

[OctoberRaven]

Because, you know, they never had any science fiction invoving little green men in the 1950s, and everyone at that time believed the Roswell crash was just a weather balloon.

[SeanDMan]

That arguement holds no weight. That's like saying "We made a vampire movie based on the classic Bram Stroker take on vampires. But he also wrote a book called The Lair Of The White Worm, so the third act takes place inside it's belly".

You can either take the setting for what it is or expand it, and if you want to expand it to include things that don't fit, then fine, but you're still missing the point of the original setting. It's not "this is what people of the 50s imagined!", it's "this is the world that the people of the 50s imagined would look like after nuclear war with the red menace". Just because someone in the 50s wrote books about aliens does not make them at all relevant.

[OctoberRaven]

Actually, you missed my point. Aliens make a modicum more sense than laser beam ghosts because in the 50s alien conspiracies had first taken off. Not to mention the Mothership Zeta aliens resembled the 1950's idea of the "little green men".

To use your vampire comparison, it would be more akin to crosses and garlic not working versus the classical Romanian vampire having a motorcycle.

[SeanDMan]

Actually, no, you missed my point. You're setting a yardstick of retarded design choices and saying "this one is better than that one". My point is that retarded design choices should just be straight up avoided.

[Colly]

The whole point is ridiculous anyway. Your whole argument is that ghosts and aliens are more 'retarded' in a fictional post nuclear world than mutant animals, radioactive zombies and comedy 50's robots. I can vaguely understand if they started to properly take the piss and add in a clone army of David Hasselhoffs, but who are you to claim that any of the above are retarded design points in a nuclear world that would in reality be solely inhabited by cockroaches until the food ran out? Granted laser ghosts sound daft, but if there's some explanation behind them they're not a far stretch from glowing ghouls.

[SeanDMan]

There's a difference between stylistic fiction and absurdist fiction. Once again, though, I'm talking to someone who has no idea what I'm discussing, and since I can't spell it out with cute little block letters, I'm just going to have to agree that you're an idiot.

[Colly]

If you read my post you'll see I understand exactly what your point is, the difficult variable being where the line you draw between stylistic and absurdist fiction lies. In a world like Fallout which is full of tongue in cheek humour I don't think ghosts and aliens are particularly absurd. Congratulations on finding someone to agree with you, albeit yourself.

[SeanDMan]

I'll make a wrestling analogy, and see if you can understand (though, I'm going back to the 1980s here, which might be a bit before your time):

There used to be a dude, real tough guy, called Ric Flair. And in the 80s, Flair formed this group of other tough guys: The Four Horsemen. They looked like guys who could legitimately kick your ass, and then they'd go out to bars and pick up whatever women they wanted before driving back to their hidden lair in Space Mountain.

Now, fast forward. Ric Flair is still the leader of a group of guys. And sure, that SOUNDS a lot like the Four Horsemen, until you realize that Ric Flair is not the same guy he was twenty years ago and the dudes who surround him seem more likely to want to just ride back to Space Mountain together then try and pick up women, and some of them don't even look old enough to drink yet.

The more elements of something you change, the less cohesive, intelligent, and entertaining it becomes. Swapping Tully Blanchard for Chris Benoit is one thing, swapping Arn Anderson for AJ Styles is something else. The more you fuck around with what Fallout started as, conceptually, the further away from that original vision you move, and the more it becomes a bastard child as opposed to a proper sequel.

[Colly]

On that I'll agree with you, but I don't think Fallout 3 was ever designed to be a direct sequel, and would you be happy with an almost direct remake anyway? I think stifling creativity to add anything new would be a bad thing, and leave you with the question asked by Tristof earlier 'why wouldn't you just play 1 or 2 again?'. Its a re-imagining of the earlier games with a new style and gameplay mechanic to suit newer consoles and a more mass-market appeal, similar to how GTA3 was when it came out on PS2, and using that analogy you can see that different does not automatically equate to 'worse'.

Regardless of all that, you've made a completely new point to that you were actually arguing with me with a barely relevant wrestling example, and kindly included an age jab to make yourself look superior (I'm 27). What you were getting at is that only things deemed by you to be acceptable within a fictional world created by someone else are good, and everything else is 'retarded'.

[SeanDMan]

If Grand Theft Auto 3 had ghosts that shot lasers out of their foreheads, that would be a retarded design decision too.

[SeanDMan]

And I never said that different equaled worse. What I said was that worse equaled worse.