Fallout 3 not a 'proper' Fallout game?

[Chibz]

SNIP

I meant he was silly more in appearance & name. The same way I refer to Kefka as silly (and as a gay clown, but that's neither here nor there).

As for the NCR/House? NCR is more incompetent (which doesn't make you evil). House is greedy (Which very well might).

 

[ChupathingyX]

And by that Reasoning the Honest Hearts Ending is: Kill Group A, Kill Group B or Kill everyone. Moral Choice? None. Alright, i havent played it yet so i dont know the entire reasoning behind it all but from what i know from the Lore, wiki helps, its basicly a semi-pacifist tribe vs a not-so-pacifist tribe, one being led by the former Legate of the Legion. Doesnt really strike me as moral in any sense of the word as to which side you slaughter, as the direct outcome has little implied impact.

Well I could just tell you the endings of Honest Hearts or you could just look them up yourself.

But basically excluding the "kill everyone", the other two options are much more grey because the end results are complete opposites of each other, both with their pros and cons.

You can side with either Joshua, or Daniel; with Joshua certain factions benefit from the ending and some don't, if you side with Daniel, the opposite happens with the opposite factions receiving different ends.

It all comes down to personal preference, that is a grey choice.

 

[veloper]

I prefer a poor shooter to a combat system that is so bad, it may turn newcomers against turn-based combat forever.
Gameplay is criterium #1, so I shouldn't even like the original Fallouts, but I do.

I suppose what the originals have in their favour is that they are hard, for WRPGs, but the hard mostly comes from random rolls that are fatal. Just reload.
Real challenge, not so much.
The only real strategy is to follow NPC directions early on, so you'll go pass through the easier areas first, building your PC for mobility and APs along the way.
The only real FO1 tactic is to look for corners, then move around corner, shoot baddies, retrace steps, end turn, repeat.
In FO2 you can also defeat some strong melee critters, by attacking and moving out of range in one turn. It's all about AGI.

What's left is a great setting, good atmosphere, nice dialogue and some C&C.
The amount of freedom you had and the way the game reacted to your choices set the bar for RPGs at the time, but it has been surpaced since in that area by games like Arcanum.

So Fallout 3: copies most of the setting, retains some atmosphere, bad dialogue and some shallow black-or-white game consequences. Add a crappy lineair plot. Combat improves from terrible to poor.

The difference between the old and new, in short then is the difference between a badly damaged masterpiece and a mediocre derivative work.
That is CRPG land in a nutshell.

 

[A-D.]

SNIP

I meant he was silly more in appearance & name. The same way I refer to Kefka as silly (and as a gay clown, but that's neither here nor there).

As for the NCR/House? NCR is more incompetent (which doesn't make you evil). House is greedy (Which very well might).

Well, given he fell into one of the Vats and got mutated and absorbed other Animals and Humans..well yeah the Blob thing was kinda a given there.

And what i meant with the Relation of Factions in NV is that no side is utterly good. They all have serious flaws, some more so than others. The NCR for example is also greedy, though in a different sense from House.

 

[Steefness]

My biggest complaint about the newer fallout games is the level cap. In F2 I once had a character that was well into the 40's (game was beatable at 20 for those who never played it), had taken over the stables as a massive equipment depository, and had more drugs than all the pharmacies in the game. You can't do things like that in the new ones, and that saddens me.

 

[tehlordofmyownworld]

I preffered Fallout 3 to Fallout New Vegas at the the start, but when I came back to 3 I found it strange, not as I remembered it. I still enjoy it, as well as New Vegas, but the differences in aesthetics make the games feel very different from each other at times.

 

[loc978]

My biggest complaint about the newer fallout games is the level cap. In F2 I once had a character that was well into the 40's (game was beatable at 20 for those who never played it), had taken over the stables as a massive equipment depository, and had more drugs than all the pharmacies in the game. You can't do things like that in the new ones, and that saddens me.

actually...

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=121

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=1516

On topic: I'm with the OP. I loved Fallout 3, and I have a lot of time into it... but the feel is less a Fallout game and more a Fallout tribute game... which is what I used to say about Tactics. Fallout 3 is that, but more so.

 

[ChupathingyX]

personnaly i didn't like the second and third half of fallout 1 because it sacrificed it's living hell-wasteland for a place where people have carved out a living.

geuss the fault is mine

That's because Fallout is about rebuilding civilisation, not living like people who have no hope and admittting their fate. Instead of sitting around and sucking their thumbs there are people who are actually trying to create large cities and bring society back to the wasteland...you know, people like....Tandi.

 

[Malikaw]

Random youtuber-
Interplay is trying to get the Fallout franchise back from Bethesda... please don't let Interplay get it back... otherwise Fallout 4 will be just shit. Other fallout games were gay.

5 days ago Like?Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUST RESIST URGE TO RAPE YOUTUBERS

Testicular brained, can't play anything but shoot people in head every 5 seconds games, people in my fallout? It's apparently more likely then I think because this thing is actually getting likes :/

 

[LordRoyal]

I suppose what the originals have in their favour is that they are hard, for WRPGs, but the hard mostly comes from random rolls that are fatal. Just reload.
Real challenge, not so much.
The only real strategy is to follow NPC directions early on, so you'll go pass through the easier areas first, building your PC for mobility and APs along the way.
The only real FO1 tactic is to look for corners, then move around corner, shoot baddies, retrace steps, end turn, repeat.
In FO2 you can also defeat some strong melee critters, by attacking and moving out of range in one turn. It's all about AGI.

What's left is a great setting, good atmosphere, nice dialogue and some C&C.
The amount of freedom you had and the way the game reacted to your choices set the bar for RPGs at the time, but it has been surpaced since in that area by games like Arcanum.

So Fallout 3: copies most of the setting, retains some atmosphere, bad dialogue and some shallow black-or-white game consequences. Add a crappy lineair plot. Combat improves from terrible to poor.

I don't know why you believed Fallout's combat was particularly hard. Most of the difficulties in combat stemmed from how you created your character.

Naturally say getting the Gifted Perk, raising your perception to 10 and tagging Small Guns would make you easily dominate with the 10mm against anything you find easily being able to get stronger weapons really early on. As long as you knew what you were doing Fallout was not really that hard of a game to play. Neither was the second one for that matter. Baldur's Gate by contrast was significantly harder, especially since it ran on the broken AD&D ruleset. I still have fond memories of having to reload savegames of my character being instantly killed by arrows as soon as I entered a room. Most of the strategy I found in Fallout was to kill your allies and take their equipment. Like I tended to kill Ian as soon as I got him and take his stuff, then massacre Shady Sands and sell the things I find on the people there. In a way I found it quite immersive.

With regards to Arcanum you know it was developed by some of the same developers correct? Plus it plays practically the same as Fallout just with a horribly broken combat system. Fallout's combat was replayable because you could beat the game effectively as a melee exclusive user just as easily as a ranged weapons user. You just needed to allocate your points accordingly. In Arcanum the game was twice as easy playing a magic user/melee weapons user then a tech/ranged weapons user.

With Fallout 3 the biggest problem I felt was how consolised the combat felt. I never felt like I was actually getting better at combat, just that my bullets were doing more damage for some reason. Not to mention I was fully convinced that my bullets were just BBs after headshotting a Raider 10 times and not even flinching. If you think Fallout's strategies were low, how do you compare to Fallout 3's VATS into a room and just absorb bullets as you take only 10% damage from them?

 

[kingcom]

So yea, Im super torn, on one side you dislike Morrowind AND use a Flying High gif but on the otherhand you talk about any 'hate' against Fallout 3 being butthurt fans who wanted (prior to even playing it) to hate the game. This seems more than a little ignorant of issues people raise over the game. Care to follow this up as to why it is simply butthurt? As someone who quite enjoyed the first 2 games and thought Fallout 3 was pretty bad.

Well, most of the hate seems to be based on the genre change. A lot of the seeming inconsistencies (such as the absolutely mentally handicapped super mutants) are explained in game. The main story is... more or less lacking, but fortunately it's not the main attraction.

The setting's still (mostly) there. It's still video game narrative, which is hard to take seriously. And the core game play is solid.

As for people who go into the game wanting to hate it? If you want to hate a game, you'll hate it. Even if the reasons FOR hating it are flimsy and sometimes silly, you'll hate it. Which is why your opinion (usually) shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm the only person I know who can be won over by a game I expected to hate outright. Because I'm awesome.

What about the most critical of problems most people I know had issue with? That you cant play the game in the way you choose? I couldn't play a high charisma, completely talky character in this game like I did in the last two (sure there was the stupid Temple of Trials in FO2 but that is effectively only 1 fight). You were limited by a fairly combat heavy gameplay in what was a very empty wasteland. There was often little to actually interact with in the world (on a sentient level anyway) and I often found little reason to run around and explore, maxing out every aspect of my character was easy without needing to really focus on doing do.

Personally I found the main plot atrocious, and no you cant drop a 'its a video game narrative'. There are absolutely brilliant videogame narratives, so I hold the same standard as I would to any other medium. Your father is just kind of a jerk who seems to have absolutely no foresight whatsoever leaves you to rot at the hands of a somewhat extreme overseer (who then subsequently demonstrates his irrational nature by not immediately checking your quarters when they start looking for you and instead goes after his own daughter) wait...why am I after him again?

Never eally found many funny moments in Fallout 3 either. Maybe it was just me but I guess I dont find the random Canadian surviving a nuclear explosion to be 'black humour' and more 'doesnt make sense' as opposed to the egotistical stylings of Myron. Then again "Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink." Thats a Fallout 2 quote btw...see what I did there (yea I know its not originally from that but thats where I first heard it).
>.>
<.<

I got lots of personal things I found a bit uncomfortable in this kind of rpg. Magic stat boosting items (i swear I was waiting to see my +3 Gun of swiftness drop from a random loot chest), wierd custom weapons. Nothing seemed real enough for me to actually get immersed in the world, everyone and everything felt like a video game trigger, invulnerable npcs, random villages in the wasteland, a colony of children who can hold off both slavers and can sit right next to the largest concentration of super mutants in the wasteland (seriously, I cant get over how Little Lamplight makes no sense, can be such a giant middle finger to the player AND manages to imply a creepy child sex theme all at the same time). Its a game that completely removed any sense of scale by letting you detonate a nuke right at the start of the game and then expect you to care what is going on about some kobolds in a mine somewhere, let alone your father.

Honestly, I can see people enjoying it but the way some people hail this game like it was the peak of gaming is just plain confusing to me. It seems there are many games that do the same thing only better but whatever. Thats personally why I don't like it, fallout 1 and 2 weren'tpart of my childhood, i played them in 2000 and really enjoyed them so I think i can safely say nostalgia isn't the factor here.

EDIT: WTF?? I HAVE TO WATCH AN AD TO ENTER THE CAPTCHA????

 

[ChupathingyX]

Random youtuber-
Interplay is trying to get the Fallout franchise back from Bethesda...&#65279; please don't let Interplay get it back... otherwise Fallout 4 will be just shit. Other fallout games were gay.

5 days ago Like?Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUST RESIST URGE TO RAPE YOUTUBERS

Testicular brained, can't play anything but shoot people in head every 5 seconds games, people in my fallout? It's apparently more likely then I think because this thing is actually getting likes :/

The modern Interplay are not the same Interplay/Black Isle who made Fallout 1 and 2.

The only current developer who can make a good Fallout game is Obsidian, you have to remember that Obsidian is made up of people from Black Isle so they know the Fallout universe.

 

[blindthrall]

The Super Mutants of Vault 87 were created with a differant strain of the FEV Virus, it has a 99% chance of creating the feral mutants that wander DC. It's all there in the terminals of Vault 87, growth in physical prowess, but degeneration in mental faculties. You did a lazy job of exploring.

Ferals were always cannon fodder, you couldn't talk to them, they were essentailly zombies without the black magic (actually radiation practilly works like magic in that game). The ones you could talk to envoked mostly pity, you had to be a heartless bigot or learn from one to hate them. And don't give any bull about Fallout 3's normal ghouls envoking niether pity or disgust. Gob, Carol, Michael Masters and even Bessie Lynn could envoke pity in a player, while Roy Phillips, Ahzurkhal, Crowley, Griffin and few others reinforced the idea that ghouls weren't always these poor oppressed souls and could be bastards too. The only ghoul to do that was in Fallout 1 and that guy was Set.

I read all of that in Vault 87, because I was looking for some kind of explanation why these ones were idiots. What I got was a handwave. Why would the Enclave make a crappier strain of FEV? If all the samples were created at Mariposa, where the did the different strain come from? And God forbid we should get an actual explanation for what the mutants' goals in the DC area are. It takes brains to supply an army with all those guns they have, but we never see any that aren't morons. There's no good reason for Super Mutants without the Master, and I think Bethesda knew that, but went ahead anyway. Bethesda did a lazy job of writing.

As far as the ghouls, well, you name all the ones that are interesting in one sentence. The rest are common NPCs or ferals. In Fallout 2, most of the ghouls are settled in their own communities, something more than a museum gift shop. Ferals are a random encounter, not something you see every five minutes. At least the Bright Followers are a step in the right direction.

 

[sms_117b]

Is it wrong then that I prefered Fallout 3?

I liked the story (before the ending expansion DLC), gameplay was good, humor made me chuckle, played it way more than New Vegas. I can't compare it to anything before because I haven't, and honestly, don't intend to, play them.

 

[kingcom]

I prefer a poor shooter to a combat system that is so bad, it may turn newcomers against turn-based combat forever.

Snip

Huh, interesting, a cousin of mine played fallout 2 for a bit, he'd never played a PC game before let alone a turn based game (hes used to playing things like call of duty, though he did play Fallout 3 and its why he tried this) and he seemed to pick it up without much problem. He told me after he stopped playing, that he didnt like that you had to talk to all these people but like how he could then shoot them and move on anyway.

So yea, he loved Fallout 3 but combat wasnt the issue with him, it was more the fact that he needed to sit there talking to people rather than going around shooting.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Is it wrong then that I prefered Fallout 3?

I liked the story (before the ending expansion DLC), gameplay was good, humor made me chuckle, played it way more than New Vegas.

So you didn't find the fact that Betehsda insulted your intelligence to be a bads thing? I'm pretty sure when the game tells you to sacrifice yourself you stopped and thought to yourself "why can't I send my ghoul/super mutant/robot companion inside, they're immune to radiation?". Also weren't you aware of the fact that the whoel storyline is about a purifier even though after 20 years a lot of the radiation would be gone and even then, using a very simple filtering system of buckets, dirt and rocks you can get rid of most of the radiation in water?

I can't compare it to anything before because I haven't, and honestly, don't intend to, play them.

Isn't that kind of ignorant of the original Fallout games and Fallout universe though? You could at least go on the Fallout wiki and read the timeline or watch some videos on Youtube.

 

[LordRoyal]

Ferals were always cannon fodder, you couldn't talk to them, they were essentailly zombies without the black magic (actually radiation practilly works like magic in that game). The ones you could talk to envoked mostly pity, you had to be a heartless bigot or learn from one to hate them. And don't give any bull about Fallout 3's normal ghouls envoking niether pity or disgust. Gob, Carol, Michael Masters and even Bessie Lynn could envoke pity in a player, while Roy Phillips, Ahzurkhal, Crowley, Griffin and few others reinforced the idea that ghouls weren't always these poor oppressed souls and could be bastards too. The only ghoul to do that was in Fallout 1 and that guy was Set.

As far as the ghouls, well, you name all the ones that are interesting in one sentence. The rest are common NPCs or ferals. In Fallout 2, most of the ghouls are settled in their own communities, something more than a museum gift shop. Ferals are a random encounter, not something you see every five minutes. At least the Bright Followers are a step in the right direction.

From what I remember of Fallout's continuity it doesn't run using realistic theories as to what radiation does. Bare in mind most of it is based off science fiction at the time, scientists believing radiation melted your skin etc. From what I remember of Fallout 1 going to the Necropolis I rarely had to actually engage Ghouls unless I stole their things. Or if you told them you were planning to steal the water chip from them. I didn't really get the whole sewer systems filled with just random zombies feeling that Fallout 3 gave me.

The one thing I hated about Fallout 3's underworld was how cliche it felt. Just a random place where all the ghouls live and don't interact with the outside world. Didn't Necropolis in Fallout 1 already do this and better? Actually Fallout 3 altogether felt like a rehash of Fallout 1, just with less substance.

 

[sms_117b]

Is it wrong then that I prefered Fallout 3?

I liked the story (before the ending expansion DLC), gameplay was good, humor made me chuckle, played it way more than New Vegas.

So you didn't find the fact that Betehsda insulted your intelligence to be a bads thing? I'm pretty sure when the game tells you to sacrifice yourself you stopped and thought to yourself "why can't I send my ghoul/super mutant/robot companion inside, they're immune to radiation?". Also weren't you aware of the fact that the whoel storyline is about a purifier even though after 20 years a lot of the radiation would be gone and even then, using a very simple filtering system of buckets, dirt and rocks you can get rid of most of the radiation in water?

I can't compare it to anything before because I haven't, and honestly, don't intend to, play them.

Isn't that kind of ignorant of the original Fallout games and Fallout universe though? You could at least go on the Fallout wiki and read the timeline or watch some videos on Youtube.

Well first time I got there, I had no companions (in fact most times I got there I had no companions) so no, When I played the villain it felt a little broke because Lyons made a large guilt trip, when I thought about sending Fawks in the DLC had already come out so I could. The radiation I looked passed for one simple reasaon, that world operates under different natural laws, if your going to complain about that you should complain about the super mutant, ghouls, rad-scorpions and the rest of them, its a world where Science! rules the day to day operation not science.

It might be, but a few of my favourite games I can't bring myself to play anymore, FF8 for example, possibly my favourite game of all time, but I can't get into it like I used to because of the graphics, as shallow as that makes me sound, no offense to anyone, but I'm not going to watcha video of another person playing a video game, that has absolutly no appeal to me what-so-ever, as for the wiki's, they kind of lose their purpose if you don't play the game, I only ever use them to find bits and pices I missed and to confirm thoughts about things I find. I'm quite happy not to know anything about, if I miss out then it's my loss, doesn't effect how I play the game now, or how much I enjoy it. By what you're saying, playing the previous ones may even reduce my enjoyment of FO3, now why on Earth would I want that?

 

[LordRoyal]

By what you're saying, playing the previous ones may even reduce my enjoyment of FO3, now why on Earth would I want that?

Well you know what they say, ignorance is bliss

 

[kingcom]

By what you're saying, playing the previous ones may even reduce my enjoyment of FO3, now why on Earth would I want that?

Truman was pretty happy too.