And there are monsters called Brownies. Yes, a zoologist in this universe named a species Brownies.
You'd think they'd want to come up with something less silly, given that they basically make up 50% of the total combat encounters for the first two thirds of the game.
@fetchfox said:
Fallout 3 was rather poorly written at times, but overall fun. I guess I'm blessed to not have experienced any particularly crappy RPG.
I've only played two Bethesda games (skyrim and fallout 3), but in both the main story line is horrible, and it's only the secondary exploration stuff that has the potential to save it? In Skyrim I guess it's the guild stuff. In fallout 3 it's the stuff tied to specific locations - I thought the big town/little lamplight stuff was kind of interesting, as was the stuff with the nuke and tenpenny towers. There's other stuff too, but you get the idea.
I mean I think it's probably evidence of something I feel is probably a good thing - giving individual writers, artists etc. or small groups creative control over distinct areas, because that's probably how they manage to fashion meaty side quests that hold the player's attention. On the other hand the quality of some of this stuff is often used as a defense for the lack of quality of the main storyline. And I think in some ways that makes me think even less of the "main" quests because they end up hardly seeming to tie in to the wider world at all.
This is really different to the original fallout games I think, which had a good balance of distinct areas with their own stories and atmospheres, but which still tied into the wider world and the greater story you were experiencing in some way. (incidentally this is partly, I think, where Kingdoms of Amalur fails in the other direction. None of the areas seem to have any distinct identity outside of the player and their quest/story. This is why actually the dlc stuff was the best stuff in that game by a country mile, as they were a bit more creative with that stuff).
Log in to comment