Fallout 3 remake
- Thread starter IankBailey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If anything more than this needs to be said, someone needs a nice helping of common sense.xmetatr0nx said:
The thing about turn-based is that it's all about levelling your character, much like tabletop RPG. You design a great character and they'll do well in the situations you've designed them for. In an fps (or equivalent), you can design a shitty character, and just be quick with your RT finger. I actually like the mix that Fallout 3 has. I love the levelling side, and sometimes that's fine on its own, but the balance they struck in FO3 was pretty much spot on for me.
So far as the original Fallouts go, I tried to play the first one back when FO3 came out and I couldn't afford it. Now I play some old-school games, and some point-and-click games, but I found Fallout 1 irretrievably ugly, and the story didn't really draw me in in the opening hour or so. So I stopped playing it. I know that there are people who love them. I also know (though I don't understand) that there are some people who prefer them over the most modern incarnation. For me, there's not much they could fix about Fallout 3 to make a better post-apocalyptic role-playing game.
So far as the original Fallouts go, I tried to play the first one back when FO3 came out and I couldn't afford it. Now I play some old-school games, and some point-and-click games, but I found Fallout 1 irretrievably ugly, and the story didn't really draw me in in the opening hour or so. So I stopped playing it. I know that there are people who love them. I also know (though I don't understand) that there are some people who prefer them over the most modern incarnation. For me, there's not much they could fix about Fallout 3 to make a better post-apocalyptic role-playing game.
I'd prefer to see the old games remade with a new engine..Probably not the Bethesda one, though. Although..That GECK thing. That could be used, no?
It is barely a year old, the only thing I'd want to see changed is to make it a little more like Oblivion and include an insta-heal thing similar to the healing spell. Because in the beginning with the dreaded mirelurks I just died, and died and died and died over and over and over again.
I replied in the assumption that he was talking about the turn-based combat. You click on the enemy and the dice/game do all the work.
I like Bethesda's engine, bug-ridden as it is. If I want to play old Fallout, I go play old Fallout.
I love how bent "hardcore" fans are on permantly ending their favorite series becuase they're afraid of, or don't like, change.
Fallout 3 is still Fallout. It still has the Fallout Universe, and has the same storys and conflict, same quirks. All that really changed was that the Fallout humor isn't nearly as overt as it once was (it's still there - but now its a little more high-brow and hidden), its not a slow as hell, unwieldly, outdated turn-based system, and the story got a bit less...involved than the past ones. Than again, Bethesda aren't exactly Pultizer Prizes winners either, so what can you expect. THe story we do have serves as good reasoning tool to move the game along, and adds nicey to the Fallout Universe, showing us more Brotherhood, more Enclave, more Mutant, and more of exactly what the hell happened after the Great War.
Fallout 3 is still Fallout. It still has the Fallout Universe, and has the same storys and conflict, same quirks. All that really changed was that the Fallout humor isn't nearly as overt as it once was (it's still there - but now its a little more high-brow and hidden), its not a slow as hell, unwieldly, outdated turn-based system, and the story got a bit less...involved than the past ones. Than again, Bethesda aren't exactly Pultizer Prizes winners either, so what can you expect. THe story we do have serves as good reasoning tool to move the game along, and adds nicey to the Fallout Universe, showing us more Brotherhood, more Enclave, more Mutant, and more of exactly what the hell happened after the Great War.
My first reaction upon reading this post was to stand up, throw my keyboard out of the window and fast-travel to the nearest bridge and drown myself in the mush filled goo that we city living folks like to call 'water'.Snotnarok said:
But then I calmed myself down and had a cookie.
There are a scant few games that we can call master pieces in existence at the moment.
One of them is Planescape: Torment. One of them isn't fallout three.
While I enjoyed the experience, fallout three isn't a game that I will play again. There's a whole load of flaws and bad design choices that bogs down the feeling, and while most of the side quests are well writen, the main story line can go and hang itself.
Tldr:
I am a gamer who greatly value story, and the impact we as players can have on that story. I loved planescape torment for this reason, as I did the original two fallout games. For me, it's all about feeling that what I do in the game matters. I want consequences for my actions, and it is here that I feel that fallout 3 failed in the worst way.
In fallout 2, if you gained a negative reputation after slaughtering a whole town and raping it's women, you would be positively shunned by every 'good' aligned character in the game. Your reputation would stay with you and you would be hard pressed to get rid of it. Peoples hated you, and refused you quests and opportunities.
Fallout 3 completely disregards this process by including 'Instant redemption' in the form of church donations. "Oh what is that you say? You blew up megaton? It's alright, I don't hate you. Hand me 1k caps and we're even."
Another thing I value in games (and particularly game series) is continuity. If something important happens in the previous game, a setting is staged or so, I want related events in the following games to reflect this. Fallout 3 almost completely disregard the previous two games in this aspect, giving only passing respect to the story and events of them.
I realize that bethesoft must be able to claim artistic license, since they bought the rights to the franchise, but it still feels like a slap in the face to us who enjoyed the previous two games.
Granted, we who value coherent stories and immersion are a dying breed, gradually giving room to the new 'gamers'. I realize that change is a part of everything, and I can only hope for better quality in coming games.
In fallout 2, if you gained a negative reputation after slaughtering a whole town and raping it's women, you would be positively shunned by every 'good' aligned character in the game. Your reputation would stay with you and you would be hard pressed to get rid of it. Peoples hated you, and refused you quests and opportunities.
Fallout 3 completely disregards this process by including 'Instant redemption' in the form of church donations. "Oh what is that you say? You blew up megaton? It's alright, I don't hate you. Hand me 1k caps and we're even."
Another thing I value in games (and particularly game series) is continuity. If something important happens in the previous game, a setting is staged or so, I want related events in the following games to reflect this. Fallout 3 almost completely disregard the previous two games in this aspect, giving only passing respect to the story and events of them.
I realize that bethesoft must be able to claim artistic license, since they bought the rights to the franchise, but it still feels like a slap in the face to us who enjoyed the previous two games.
Granted, we who value coherent stories and immersion are a dying breed, gradually giving room to the new 'gamers'. I realize that change is a part of everything, and I can only hope for better quality in coming games.
Mass effect has a better moral system, for example. (story too)
I must really disagree. While I give you that fallout 3 moves along with a quicker pace, and that Bethesda have proven themselves to be poor writers at times, the game really deviates too much from the original story. Take the brotherhood of steely knights for example. In the first game, we are given the impression of a very strict, technocratic group, few in numbers and very sociophobic, hard to impress etc. Granted, the second games scales down the BoS a great deal, hell, we hardly even get to interact with them! We are given the impression that they are still there, but a bit more opened to the public, and a great deal smaller. (Or maybe they just didn't have a large hold on that side of the mountains)Paragon Fury said:
In fallout three however, they are suddenly, in the space of a couple of years, a large, militaristic salvation group, happy to lend a hand and a cash of coins to anyone and everyone who asks. This sudden turn is never really explained properly.
The same goes for the super mutants. Why, when they where on the decline in the second game, are they suddenly amassing in great numbers in dc? It makes no sense, really. Sure, I played through that quest, I know what it's about, but it's too many, too soon.
As for the humor, I can't agree there either. There's something lacking in the jokes made, sure they're there, but it isn't the same as the first game. Fallout 2 took it almost too far, but the feeling was there. Do I even have to mention the fat-man? Fallout 3 is more in-your-face than both of the two first games combined. High brown and hidden indeed.
We live in strange and interesting times when we can say good things about the morality system in something made by Bioware.Heliros said:
Maybe it's just me, but I kinda had enough of Fallout 3 after playing through the original. I had no desire to shell out for a few extra missions in three different expansions, and I wouldn't want to replay it with a different GUI.
Fallout should just go away for a while. Good game, but far to repetitive, and peaked many hours before it's longwinded conclusion.
Fallout should just go away for a while. Good game, but far to repetitive, and peaked many hours before it's longwinded conclusion.
I think he's referring to the apparant lack of interactivity involved in having the computer aim your blows/shots for you. Gamers with this mentality really need to stick to FPS and stfu. There is a whole different aspect to gaming called strategy that they don't seem to grasp. I'll admit that I love FPS as much as anyone, but it's not the only kind of game out there.BardSeed said: