Suggestions for things that should return

[Galaga Bee]

I thought that maybe instead of having one generic thread for people to post their ideas, I would add one or two "more specific" threads about certain types of suggestions people may have about what they would like to see in Fallout 3.

This thread will be dedicated to suggestions for things people would like to see return from the previous games, and I'll start with a couple of my own:

1) The player character should start the game wearing a blue, numbered jumpsuit while exiting a vault. The developers can take it from here, but I think this is a must, in my oh-so-humble opinion.
2) I would like to see the Vaultboy art/pictures make it back into the game/materials somehow. Not necessarily the same images from before, persay, but the art was very popular the first time around, and it's very identifiable. You know it has something to do with Fallout if you see a picture of the Vaultboy.

Post away.

Edited:
I don't really care if you post here. I know you're watching. Besides, the fewer people who post here, the more I can dominate this entire forum with nothing but my opinions.

[Smoke_Jaguar]

I simply want to point out that I won't interject and won't bother you from posting here.Good day

[Galaga Bee]

You won't bother me by posting here, but it's fine either way.

[Smoke_Jaguar]

I was joking dude


--this ain't a post.

[Galaga Bee]

I also think whores should return. And maybe slavery, although I have mixed opinions about that.

[Smoke_Jaguar]

whores I dunno about them, but prostitutes should definetly return.
about slavery, didn't we kill metzger last time?still haven't found sulik's sis.
talking deathclaw skulls.

[Galaga Bee]

Hookers are great, but I'm not into the idea of having "relationships" (ie. getting married, etc.) in the game (or any game, for that matter). I say if you want a relationship, go find a GF/BF/right hand/left hand, or if you just won't be able to sleep until it makes its way into a video game, go buy a copy of The Sims 2 instead.

But, IMO it wouldn't be Fallout without hookers.

Interestingly enough, prostitution is often used as a form of slavery, so they're both kind of the same thing in many respects. Still, I think a lot of people stand to be offended if outright slavery is included, whereas hookers have a long, storied tradition of being included in video games without as much of a fuss. Therefore, IMO the devs may want to think about that before they go diving in head first with the idea of including outright slavery in the game.

Ultimately though, it's just a game, so I doubt that I personally would be offended by it, unless they just did it in really poor taste. But why include it if it's not a necessary part of the game? IMO they can come up with lots of great stuff to put in the game without going anywhere near the topic of slavery, so I don't really see much of a reason why they should choose to include it, other than to do some envelope pushing.

But... I'm not completely against the idea, since it *could* potentially be done right, and if so it could still be entertaining. I guess maybe my point is that I don't see why Fallout 3 can't be just as entertaining without it.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Galaga Bee

Hookers are great, but I'm not into the idea of having "relationships" (ie. getting married, etc.) in the game (or any game, for that matter). I say if you want a relationship, go find a GF/BF/right hand/left hand, or if you just won't be able to sleep until it makes its way into a video game, go buy a copy of The Sims 2 instead.

Could you give any reasons why you don't want to see any relationships in the game? IMO it would add some interesting flavour to the game when you could get married with NPC, and there is even possibilities to add some sidestories to those also.

Interestingly enough, prostitution is often used as a form of slavery, so they're both kind of the same thing in many respects. Still, I think a lot of people stand to be offended if outright slavery is included, whereas hookers have a long, storied tradition of being included in video games without as much of a fuss. Therefore, IMO the devs may want to think about that before they go diving in head first with the idea of including outright slavery in the game.

Ultimately though, it's just a game, so I doubt that I personally would be offended by it, unless they just did it in really poor taste. But why include it if it's not a necessary part of the game? IMO they can come up with lots of great stuff to put in the game without going anywhere near the topic of slavery, so I don't really see much of a reason why they should choose to include it, other than to do some envelope pushing.

And why not include it? If we think of the world where the story happens, it's IMO only natural that there is slavery and prostitution. The world is, after all, more or less in anarchy. In anarchy, strong ones tends to dominate weaker ones, and thus slavery is only a part of it. Do you believe that people do not buy the game if it contains slavery, when there is also killing, stealing, drugs and that kind of things also present? If the slavery is left out, then for same reason developers should also leave those things I mentioned also out from the game.

So, IMO slavery and prostitution is part of the world where the game (probably) is taking place, so there is no reason to leave it out from the game.

[Galaga Bee]

Obviously I'm no market analyst, so it's all just speculation, but slavery is one of those subjects that certain people get riled up about that wouldn't get upset about other things in the game.

So yes, I do believe that there are people who would choose not to buy the game if slavery is included who would buy the game otherwise, even with the other subjects included. It may not make very much sense, but IMO it's still true.

As an example, hypothetically speaking of course, I could see certain groups like the NAACP which would normally be indifferent to the violent or sexual content in video games choosing to speak out against the game due to the inclusion of slavery (even if it has nothing to do with ethnic minorities). This would then add a lot of muscle behind anyone who wanted to publicize their "outcry", meaning that the game would get a lot more negative publicity as a result of people who are opposed to the game having the backing of a group like the NAACP. As a result of the increased negative publicity, people who might not even be aware of the inclusion of slavery in the game or who might be indifferent to it would then be swayed not to purchase the game.

I'm not sure anyone's viewpoint on this can be fully proved or disproved without Bethsoft including slavery in the game and the game being released however, since only hindsight is 20/20. The only "hard" evidence would be the historical precedent of the previous 2 games (or any other games which have included slavery), as the publishers could use any experience gained from these other games (even though they weren't the ones who made them) to make their decision this time around.

I think it also has to do with how the slavery is implemented. There's a difference between having the option (or even requirement) to free the slaves in a game, and having the option to buy/sell people yourself and have your own personal slave.

I'm personally not familiar with what type of "outcry" there was towards the inclusion of slavery in Fallout 1 and 2 when they were released, so it's entirely possible that the previous developers didn't "ruffle too many feathers" the first time around, which would basically disprove my argument. If anyone happens to have links to an article, thread, etc. which discusses this particular topic, I would be interested in seeing it to know what the historical precedent for this has been.

[YaWaNLoNG]

The car: hope this time they give us different vehicles to choose from.
Improving life: But this time when you finish a quest the town actually changes for the better.
BOS: Hope now you can choose which side your on and it affects the map as you progress.

As for the slavery and hooker issues. That belongs in the game until you can find a way to get rid of them. Barren wasteland, desperate living and a new dark age. It's not pretty, but the game kinda is a warning of what will happen when and after a nuclear war occurs. NOT GOOD. Forming relationships with your npc's romantic or otherwise is just a challenge for designers to see if they can pull it of without it being either full of corn or cheese.
Personally I preferred fallout tactics, because of the smaller population you wont have mass armies, and victories are determined by small squad or platoon sized units. Plus you got a tank. It's kinda like a real time X-Com.

[Smoke_Jaguar]

You *liked* Fallout Tactics?You actually liked it?
Haha, looks like you are the only one, since Interplay died.Even their website isn't working.

I love how self-destructive Interplay is. They take Fallout, a solid franchise, and release Fallout Tactics when the fans are clamoring for Fallout 3, mock fans by using Fallout as a codename for Lionheart, then move the franchise away from the PC, by making Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel a platform-only game. Was it shocking that this watered down, sophomoric title failed to sell?

I can't imagine any gamer, Fallout fan or not, enjoying this game.

[YaWaNLoNG]

Mainly because there was no fallout 3. Tactics was for people who liked games like X-com and older games like wasteland. This time it felt like you controlled a faction. I agree it's NOT like fallout 1&2 but it's attribute/perks/trait system incorporated in squad tactics was nothing like anything in the market then. If they included that in UFO-Apocalypse and Silent Storm, those games would have been better. Things I liked about it:

-you got several vehicles to choose from including a tank.
-your platoon consisted of deathclaws, ghouls, supermutants, robots and other humans like tribals.
-combat system, traps, armor/weapon/equipment requirements made sense. better than fallout 2
-aside from story it was an improvement in gameplay.

Dunno about that platform game. Basically it was a good squad based game but the problem was people who would like it would also have to be familiar with the fallout franchise to like it.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by Smoke_Jaguar

You *liked* Fallout Tactics?You actually liked it?
Haha, looks like you are the only one, since Interplay died.Even their website isn't working.

Even though you didn't like the game, it doesn't mean that no-one else did. Fallout: Tactics wasn't that bad game at all. And I know a lots of people who thinks the same way. Of course it wasn't like older Fallouts, but it wasn't even meant to be like those. And in my opinion it's quite absurd to directly link Fallout: Tactics to the closing of Interplay. There was so much more behind than just Fo:Tactics.

I love how self-destructive Interplay is. They take Fallout, a solid franchise, and release Fallout Tactics when the fans are clamoring for Fallout 3, mock fans by using Fallout as a codename for Lionheart, then move the franchise away from the PC, by making Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel a platform-only game. Was it shocking that this watered down, sophomoric title failed to sell?

Firstly, I haven't played Fo:BOS, but I don't still agree with you that Fallout should have stayed only on PC. It's in my opinion only good thing that console-gamers can enjoy the world of Fallout, even though the game isn't like PC-games...

I can't imagine any gamer, Fallout fan or not, enjoying this game.

This game = Fallout: Tactics?
Here is one!

[YaWaNLoNG]

Originally Posted by Kipi

This game = Fallout: Tactics?
Here is one!

*COUGH!!* . . .two.

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Well, I am sorry for offending the ENTIRE FALLOUT TACTICS FANBASE (even if it only has 2 members.)