Matey said:
WhiteTiger225 said:
Razorback0z said:
"I wanted to love Fallout 3 when it was launched. I was not sitting around carping about Black Isle's discarded isometric revival, Van Buren. I had accepted the fate of the franchise and its inescapable need to be a mass market product with multiple avenues of distribution. I am practical about the reality of the video game market"
I wanted to love it too. I also shared your realistic view on the way FA3 was to be presented, despite my revulsion.
But unlike you I have not softened my view on it. Time has not made my glasses any rosier on the topic of the demise of the fallout franshise and it is a demise.
One of the most complex, rich and detailed RPG's of all time has been reduced to an FPS.
End of story.
Nice work Bethesda.
I just lol at this XD
A company WELL KNOWN for First person view Action RPGs gets ahold of the game, and you think they are going to change what makes them, well, them? And honestly, if Fallout 1-2 was so great and extraordinary... Why did Black Isle go out of buisness? And why is it they couldn't even get enough money to keep the rights to the Fallout MMO? I liked Fallout 1-2 when I first played them, they were damn decent games (Had some gaping holes in the game though, like missing NPCs for quests and such) and were rough jewels of their time. But times have changed. Black Isle didn't make as much money as they hoped and are now a companies *****, while the company that made them their ***** has made a game that has made multi millions, and doing 1000's of percentiles better in sales then the old versions. Can you HONESTLY, with a straight face, tell me that Fo3 would have been better in both gameplay AND sales if it was left isometric turn based gridlocked movement like its predecessor? Bethesda took a risk by picking up a mostly dead franchise that was slowly being buried with time, and they took a risk adapting it to THEIR style instead of the original owners style, and I applaud them for that. And honestly, how can you call the franchise dead? From what I see it's a well selling game thats only unaccepted by 3 groups. The purist fanboys, the Retards who expected it to be a fullout FPS like STALKER or CoD4, and the people who actually legitemetly just don't like it because of meer taste, which honestly that I can accept. This isn't the franchises death, this is the Franchise's rebirth into the modern world of gaming.
Next you will say Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is going to suck because he changed it from the original bright and colorful to his own gothic styled envisionment XD
if it had been true to the originals. had a better thought out game world... had an isometric view... had better dialogue, better quests, better comedy, better combat. (sorry i shouldn't say better... i should say similar to the original) then i know for a fact it wouldn't have been as successful as it was. i have no doubt about that. but i do believe they could have done a way better job on the writing for dialogue and story. and they could have animated the characters expressions and body language much better. and make the combat less repetitive... and it would have done even better than it did. i understand the isometric version had to go in order to appeal to larger crowds. and making games is about making money. its not the style that upsets me. its the lack of effort put into making the story and setting coherent. tell me how there can be a scattering of settlements that are so poorly defended that a single traveler with an assault rifle can wipe them off the map... and yet they survive in a wasteland that has a 500 to 1 ratio of hostiles to neutral/friendlies.
then tell me how they feed themselves with no food. or how they have rich people with no source of income. also explain to me how 250 years after the apocalypse... there are still vaults and buildings all over the place that have not been looted. anyways. like i said the writing and level of detail in the setting and story sucked, although it looked real pretty. VATS got annoying fast(wow look at me miss the target in slow motion!). and having to fight everything all the time also sucked. and its a very weak RPG since you spend 95% of your time wandering around killing shit. not to mention the quests are almost always "go here and kill stuff" or "go here and find something(which involves going to a location full of hostiles).
ok done ranting for now.
its still a decent game. i have mixed feelings about it... fallout 3 brought a ton of new fans to the fallout universe... which is good... except a lot of them have never and will never play the originals which were far better rpgs.
also why does everyone say comparing stalker and fallout 3 is unfair?
i admit i havent finished stalker. ive only put in a couple hours. but i started it off... talked to an npc. got a quest. wandered around completed the quest. talked to some npcs. decided on wether to help or kill some guys. solved quests in different ways... went back talked to some npcs... got more quests... it seemed pretty damn similar to me. the only big difference is the lack of the character creation and level up...
"also why does everyone say comparing stalker and fallout 3 is unfair?
i admit i havent finished stalker. ive only put in a couple hours. but i started it off... talked to an npc. got a quest. wandered around completed the quest. talked to some npcs. decided on wether to help or kill some guys. solved quests in different ways... went back talked to some npcs... got more quests... it seemed pretty damn similar to me. the only big difference is the lack of the character creation and level up..."
Well in that case then we can call STALKER the same game as Fable, or the same game as Assassin's Creed, or the same game as Oblivion, or the same game as many other non-FPS games. STALKER will appeal to a much different audience more often then what Fo3 would appeal to. STALKER had the exploring and quests, but deep down it was a Survival FPS. Fo3 on the other hand was an Action RPG deep down.
And as for the complaints "How are the rich rich without any source of income, how do they survive without food? How do small settlements survive against numerous hostiles since they are outnumbered 500 to 1" Well my friend, I can find MANY problems via plotholes, inconsistencies, unanswered (And really over thinking) questions with Fallout 1-2. How are the ghouls flesh gone yet their vital organs still are intact despite being bathed in radiation? How come a bullet can penetrate the carapace of a giant scorpian despite the fact the armored shell would be far to hard to even scratch? How come radiation poisoning has no long lasting effects after flushing it from your system? How come you can take 20 bullets and not die of blood loss? How come you can be hit by a rocket and not die 1 hit at higher levels from simply the rubble it knocks up or the change of air pressure liquifying your brain? See... if I overthink things too I can go ahead and find "Issues" with fallout 1-2.
I mean... just ask yourself this... "How come they had fusion power vehicles and full functioning robots and the ability to transplant brains yet they never really discovered gas powered weapons or vehicles"
