xkcd

by **Xaddak** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

I could just be wrong about the price. But then again, this was a Best Buy I was in...

by **thecommabandit** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:18 pm UTC

Yeah, that fix solves System Shock 2's problem but selecting only one core just doesn't stick for this. I'll do it once, alt-tab in and it's still flicking. Restarting the game resets the core affinity majigger.

by **SecondTalon** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

How it should work.

Fallout's a pretty good game. $10.
Fallout 2 is also nice. $10.
Fallout:Tactics is a game most people pretend didn't happen. -$20.
Total Cost : $0.

by **EdgarJPublius** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:45 pm UTC

My friend bought the trilogy disc a while ago and it was completely kajiggered.
They've re-released the DVD version since then, but I dunno if it's any better.

The GOG version works quite well though, and I think it's probably the cheapest way to get all three games too (despite what much of the fandom thinks, Tactics wasn't all that bad of a game, it's certainly no 'there's no such thing as'-Invisible War)

by **pseudoidiot** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:The GOG version works quite well though, and I think it's probably the cheapest way to get all three games too

Yeah, I got Fallout 1 & 2 and ran them on Vista with no problems at all. I couldn't find any information about their release working on multi-core processors; I have a feeling they probably do, but to be safe I e-mailed support to ask.

by **Xaddak** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:My friend bought the trilogy disc a while ago and it was completely kajiggered.
They've re-released the DVD version since then, but I dunno if it's any better.

The GOG version works quite well though, and I think it's probably the cheapest way to get all three games too (despite what much of the fandom thinks, Tactics wasn't all that bad of a game, it's certainly no 'there's no such thing as'-Invisible War)

<offtopic>

I liked Invisible War. It'd be nice if they hadn't lobotomized it as much, but to me at least, it certainly captured the same feel as the first one.

</offtopic>

So, Amazon and Good Old Games are good places to look for FO1/2/Tactics? I'll have to remember that when I have more monies. Any other suggestions or should that about do it?

by **thecommabandit** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:10 pm UTC

This is what I bought, albeit from Amazon UK rather than Amazon US. For some strange reason it's more expensive on the US website... which is completely backwards to how it normally is.

by **EdgarJPublius** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:59 pm UTC

thecommabandit wrote:This is what I bought, albeit from Amazon UK rather than Amazon US. For some strange reason it's more expensive on the US website... which is completely backwards to how it normally is.

That's the old and busted version. to be fair, the problems I've seen could have resulted from a faulty disk, but I know that the GOG versions work on multi-core computers so...

by **SummerGlauFan** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:40 am UTC

I wonder if the new versions of the original games would work better on my new 'puter than the copy I have (which is, well, old

).

by **Vanguard** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:11 pm UTC

I've recently tried the original 2-3 games. (Third referring to Brotherhood of Steel, I believe it was called).

I couldn't play any of them very far. If the save file was actually working, I just didn't like the gameplay. I might be a little spoiled, but I still enjoy Quake and Starcraft and shit so the age of the game probably isn't the issue.
All the perks in the original couple have NEGATIVES attached to them, big ones too. I'm talking like Frenzy-on-Guild Wars kind of bad. (More attack speed, double damage kind of thing.) It was hard to level or even start a damn character because to me, some of the 'perk' negatives were too serious.

The tutorials help you with the mechanics but you have to push so many damn buttons before you walk anywhere, it's just a pointless Sim-type game.

My brother, my friend, and I... All 3 of us... didn't like any of the original 3.
Fallout 3 foreva.

by **Lewton** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:17 pm UTC

Vanguard wrote:All the perks in the original couple have NEGATIVES attached to them, big ones too. I'm talking like Frenzy-on-Guild Wars kind of bad. (More attack speed, double damage kind of thing.) It was hard to level or even start a damn character because to me, some of the 'perk' negatives were too serious.

The perks generally have no negative side effects.. You're talking about traits, and you don't have to pick any

by **Vanguard** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:21 pm UTC

It was a while ago, my apologies.
And I thought they were required upon character creation?

by **Lewton** » Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:25 pm UTC

Nope, they're optional.. Although choosing "bloody mess" is always recommended

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:19 am UTC

Vanguard wrote:The tutorials help you with the mechanics but you have to push so many damn buttons before you walk anywhere, it's just a pointless Sim-type game.

Vanguard wrote:it's just a pointless Sim-type game.

Vanguard wrote:Sim-type game.

...

What? Sim-type game? As in.. The Sims?

by **Vanguard** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

That's what it felt like to me.
There was so much crap I had to pay attention to they might as well have put a stat for "bladder control" and "social life".

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:10 pm UTC

If you say so.

by **Clumpy** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:20 am UTC

I disagree. I think the RPG aspects help to make the game feel like you're in a great deal of control. You can more or less ignore the perks and create a well-rounded character (with a great deal less consequence for failure than Fallout 2) or specialize and create a stealthy sniper or medically-trained juggernaut. The ability to make distinct dialogue choices based on your specialization, the subtle elements (find the dog if you want, or don't), and the freedom of exploration make it one of the most fun, thoughtful and well-rounded gaming experiences I think I've ever had. I think the best praise I can give to Fallout 3 is that it seems to have respect for the player.

by **Jessica** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:48 pm UTC

So. I finally got my computer up and running. And I got past the first few levels (which I had played over and over again, since my old pc would crash after about level 6). And i'm so freaking addicted.

I sing the songs when I'm not playing. when I'm not working or sleeping I'm trying to play.

God, I love this game.

I want to play the original two again.

by **Vanguard** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:34 pm UTC

I have most of the soundtracks on Mix CD's. Really good music.

by **Jessica** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:00 pm UTC

True. I found installing the music pack for GNR really made it that much better.

Listening to rosie the riveter while shooting railway spikes is awesome.

by **Win** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:44 am UTC

Hey everybody, did the news get around
About a guy named Butcher Pete?

by **Chfan** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:52 pm UTC

Should I try Fallout again now that I have a computer that will run it?

by **Smiling Hobo** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:08 am UTC

Win wrote:Hey everybody, did the news get around
About a guy named Butcher Pete?

Hrm? You refering to the mod "Butcher Pete's Meat"?

by **Guiro** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:40 am UTC

Win wrote:Hey everybody, did the news get around
About a guy named Butcher Pete?

Oh, Pete just flew into this town
And he's choppin' up all the women's meat.

To get back on topic, I got a new laptop that runs Fallout 3 without frame skips, so I can actually play this game like an FPS!

by **King Author** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:25 pm UTC

Fallout 3 is one of those games that, on one hand, gets rave reviews and is called a great achievement for the company that made it, but on the other hand has a small but significant, vociferous and vehement hatebase. And I think I know why. One word. Expectations.

Like Bethesda's other main series, The Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3 and some of those who play it suffer from the categorephilia of our culture. We have to fit absolutely everything into a dozen or so labels which different people have vastly different preconceptions of. Fallout 3 is lumped in with the FPS genre. The problem is, the gameplay of Fallout 3 is utterly distinct fom the gameplay of most FPS games.

Almost every FPS ever put out has you spend at least 50% of the game shooting things. For the majority of FPS', that number is actually more in the 70-90% range. They are called first person shooters, after all, that's kinda the point -- you run around shooting things. Because it's fun! It's commonplace nowadays to have at least some other gameplay elements, puzzle-solving being the most common, but ultimately, most FPS games are about the shooting.

Fallout 3 is, at most, 25% shooting. In and of itself, that wouldn't be a problem, that wouldn't draw concentrated ire. What garners the game a small hatedom is that an equal portion of the game - 25% - is exploration. The Capital Wasteland is, after all, mostly an empty expanse, devoid of things to interact with. Some people love having a massive world to go exploring in, and have fun just wandering around and coming across the occasional irradiated animal or gang of raiders, but some people utterly loathe exploration. To they who constitute Fallout 3's hatedom, it's boring, meaningless, pointless wandering around doing nothing.

The real kicker is that, because Fallout 3 is filed under F for FPS, some people buy the game expecting a certain kind of experience, and when they don't get it, they hate the game that they'd otherwise just quietly ignore.

*shrugs*

Just felt like posting this. For no reason, really. You know, as conceited as labels like "First Person Adventure" and such are, we really do need a more expansive system of labeling videogames. The labeling isn't the problem, the labels themselves are just too myopic. We need a concise way to say things like, "You're gonna spend most of your time in this game walking around the world and talking to NPCs, not shooting things, though you do also shoot things."

(Coincidentally, Half-Life 2, which is almost universally praised, also has a small hatedom also based on a conflict of expectations. Just as you spend most of Fallout 3 exploring and NPC-ing, you spend most of Half-Life 2 puzzle-solving in decrepit urban environments. People were expecting something like Half-Life 1 - blasting aliens in an underground labrynth - and weren't happy when their expectations were foiled.)

by **Goldstein** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:50 pm UTC

I expect a significant chunk of those who hate Fallout 3 do so because it puts too much emphasis on combat. Perhaps you could have picked a better example for your pigeon-hole idea, because the topic of Fallout 3 failing people's expectations has been done to death, and not for the reason you give.

by **psion** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:33 pm UTC

It has to do with expectations, but almost nothing about being labeled an FPS. I think it's actually the opposite. RPGs have always been a minority, and a lot of mainstream FPS players that probably like RPGs deep down were never really exposed to the genre. They saw Fallout 3 meeting them half-way, they tried it, and loved it. They couldn't know, though, that Fallout 3 is actually a really bad RPG. It didn't help that Oblivion was (and still is) a fairly popular game too, for whatever reason (I've heard people mention Fallout 3 is just a reskinned Oblivion, it's difficult to argue against). They haven't played Baldurs Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, or Morrowind -- to name a few. Each of those games, despite the technical limitations, are above and beyond a more quality RPG experience than Fallout 3. The people who have played those games were really excited to see Fallout continue and were more than disappointed to see Fallout 3 take the pretty but shallow route. Therein lies the hatedom, the people you speak of are the ones who are fairly indifferent about the game.

by **ProZac** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 4:48 pm UTC

I tried Fallout 3 and can be considered as part of the population that didn't like the game. I didn't like Oblivion either, but the previews of the game seemed awesome. However I hated the combat, almost solely due to the 'accuracy' mechanic. To even get an 80% chance of hitting something, I had to be at point blank range, and then take 5 shots like that to kill them. Take into account you'll lose half your life getting that close since the enemies have much higher accuracy, and it just turned into something I didn't want to play. Walking around and exploring was fun (save for the invisible walls I ran into on a few occasions), but knowing around every corner would be a 'VATS, fire, miss, VATS, fire, hit, repeat' killed it for me. Maybe I just leveled wrong, but not being a stranger to RPGs (I've been through Baldurs Gate 2), nor to FPS's, it feels like bad game design to me if I could 'level wrong'. I don't think it was really much to do with the expectations.

by **Xanthir** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:18 pm UTC

ProZac wrote:However I hated the combat, almost solely due to the 'accuracy' mechanic. To even get an 80% chance of hitting something, I had to be at point blank range, and then take 5 shots like that to kill them.

I'm sorry to say this, but yeah, you were definitely doing something wrong. Sounds like you were avoiding putting points into your gun skills. There's an easy fix for that - put more points into gun skills. Then you'll be able to fire away at people with decent accuracy.

At a long distance you'll still be facing down 30% accuracy or so, but that's fine. They're far away from you. At that distance you can skip VATS and just fire at them directly anyway.

So! Back on topic!

Yeah, agreed that the fact that there's exploration is *not* the reason F3 has a hatedom. The people who vocally hate F3 are the ones who call it Oblivion with guns, and they hate it because it doesn't have enough plot to it. I agree with this sentiment - the story, plotting, and characterization is *far* more anemic than the previous Fallouts. I still love the game for a number of reasons, but I can see how someone who doesn't love some of the aspects I do but still feels ripped off over the story could be angry at it. Also, of course, there's just the fact that a lot of people are stupid dicks. Every popular RPG has a hatedom full of dicks. ^_^

by **Clumpy** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:04 am UTC

Honestly, most of the games I love have major problems. Fallout 3 has walls of debris (which sometimes means that you have to take VERY unintuitive paths to get places) and probably too much combat at times. The mechanics are a little wonky (as you'd expect from an action RPG), and the original level cap was too low. What I hated more than anything was my character shooting five shots in a row right into some piece of the scenery in VATS mode when things had appeared clear. The plot was mostly unimportant but the game had hundreds of plot elements and experiences in it that you were left to discover at your own pace in a way entirely different from many RPGs. I felt this evened things out nicely.

Agreed with Goldstein: most people that I know dislike Fallout 3 for being a little too much of a formulaic corridor grinder/shooter at times. I loved the open areas, which made the game feel like something persistent was going on, but hated the diarrhea of subway tunnels in the downtown D.C. area, and how they were the only way to travel. But I still logged about 80 hours into the game and finished Point Lookout and Broken Steel before I was done

. If you don't level up smartly you'll be screwed. Near the end of the game you'll be unstoppable with energy weapons and combat almost becomes perfunctory.

by **SecondTalon** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:22 pm UTC

King Author wrote: Fallout 3 is lumped in with the FPS genre. The problem is, the gameplay of Fallout 3 is utterly distinct fom the gameplay of most FPS games.

Sure. But it's more often lumped in with RPG games because.. it.. is one, and all. It's gameplay fits the RPG styles that have existed in the past. Real Time, Guns, Laser Weaponry, Robots, and the first person view are all well known to the RPG genre. Hell, RPGs are the first games that gave us a first person view.

So.. yeah. Gamestop.com lists it as a Role Playing Game. Not Shooter, which is their word for FPS. For the record.

by **gmalivuk** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:54 am UTC

I recently decided to replay this, going for Neutral Karma this time (can't quite manage to get consistently bad karma, as there's a part of me that's programmed to automatically agree to do most quests offered to me, which tends to result in more good karma than bad at the beginning of the game). Also, having played through it once before as a do-gooder, I had too much nostalgia associated with my little house in Megaton to give it up for a suite at the stuffy racist-filled Tenpenny Towers.

I agree that probably the single most annoying part of the combat system is when VATS follows the NPC and continues shooting even after it's behind some part of the scenery. On this second time through, though, I've managed to anticipate that and haven't been doing it nearly as much.

And if you're having trouble with combat, it's possible to get one of the best weapons in the game shortly after you make it to Rivet City, which should happen rather early on.

by **LTK** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:08 pm UTC

I decided to save Dragon Age for a later time and reinstall Fallout 3 first, then mod it beyond recognition. Reccomendations, anyone? I'm currently looking at the top 100 on the Fallout 3 Nexus.

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:55 pm UTC

"There's more where that came from". Adds a crapton more songs to GNR which all fit in with the style being played.

by **gmalivuk** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:21 pm UTC

Yeah, that would be nice. Actually, it'd be nice to have more for all three of the music-playing stations (more patriotic stuff for the Enclave, more classical violin stuff for that lady you find the Stradi for). Unfortunately I suspect you're talking about PC mods, and I only have it on xBox at this point. (I might buy the PC version when I get a new computer, though, so I can throw on some mods and also see how fun it is to go tearing through with the Alien Blaster from the very beginning...)

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:17 pm UTC

Things I always thought looked silly - Terminator Armor in Warhammer 40,000

Things I thought looked downright terrifying after seeing it in action - Terminator Armor in Fallout 3. ... I only mention it because I got that mod after I got a Bolter mod which made a true-to-fluff Bolter summonable. Sure, the explosions from it's bolts are maybe half of what a frag grenade can do.. but the damn thing is a machine gun. Five shots into an enclosed area kills everything in it... and usually sends it all flying out whatever windows and doorways are avaliable.

So, yeah.. get it on PC.

Link to More Where That Came From

by **Ishindri** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:57 pm UTC

EVE - Energy Visuals Enhanced - Energy weapons visual overhaul. So awesome. Also adds a few new types of energy weapons.
Fellout - Changes the visuals to look like 200 years after the apocalypse, not 10 years.
Martigen's Mutant Mod - Overhauls the creatures, adds some new ones, adds new creature AI and such, and generally makes the game a lot more challenging.

by **LTK** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:53 pm UTC

I've got Fellout and the Mutant Mod, and I'm now downloading EVE. Also in the queue is FOOK, and I've got Enhanced Weather and Fallout Re-Animated. I remember reading an article about the best Fallout 3 mods, and among them was a drugs mod that gave usable items their real names and added new drugs with their effects and addictions. Does anyone remember the article or the mod?

Edit: I found the link to the article, but it's gone now. There are a few drug mods on the Nexus, but none of them are held in particularly high regard.

Edit 2: Got it. I forgot that Fallout 3 calls them 'chems'. :roll:

by **gmalivuk** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:08 pm UTC

Ishindri wrote:Changes the visuals to look like 200 years after the apocalypse, not 10 years.

So buildings that have been deserted are just flat-out gone, instead of looking just barely run-down? 'Cause that would make for a rather more boring game. :-)

by **LTK** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:03 pm UTC

I don't know, would reinforced concrete and brick walls completely crumble to dust in just 200 years? I'm pretty sure some of today's ancient ruins have survived longer than that.

I dumped a crapload of mod files in that data folder, but I've just wandered out of the Vault and I haven't noticed any difference yet. For some of them I was supposed to install the Fallout 3 mod manager, and so I did but I don't really know how it works. I'll try to find a manual for that later, first I gotta reformat and upgrade to Windows 7.

Who is online