Hating progress (fallout)

[Musicfreak]

Fair enough I can understand that, but again that's not inconsistent with the lore. Besides There are multiple ways of dealing with that quest so he could still be alive, and it wouldn't be terribly difficult to write him out of that situation. Actually seeing as how he has appeared in almost all of the Fallout games I wouldn't be surprised if they did just that.

I don't know how Harold can be written out of his situation.

He is literally rooted into the ground and his organs (well, his heart) are located underground and seemingly separate from his main body. Harold's body seems to have almost become as fucked as The Master and I can't think of a way to fix this short of "magic radiation".

I didn't say it would be terribly well written lol. I'm sure if they put their mind to it hard enough they could come up with something. Maybe something like the tree produced a fruit that grows into an exact clone of Harold or something.

 

[Thyunda]

I hate the phrase 'lore inconsistency'. If there's one thing that annoys me more than anything about fans, it's THAT. In the case of Love Never Dies, yeah, I'll say Raoul's bizarre spiral into alcoholism is character derailment - however, it's been a fair while since the events of The Phantom of the Opera, and maybe some really bad shit happened to him that made him like that.

Fallout 3's Brotherhood of Steel underwent some leadership changes. Hell, maybe the ones in the DC area were totally unique in trying to help their fellow man. But y'know what? I don't even care. These sorts of changes can happen. It'd be bad writing if every Knight wanted to kill you and hoard your laser weapon. People are different. Sometimes a group of people go against the norm and band together. Maybe a lot of Knights died during the ensuing battle.

Harold had a tree growing out of his head. And now he's a tree. I see no problem here.

Dukov. You're really complaining about Dukov getting food and booze without ever leaving his house? He has three women. Traders get lonely. Maybe he has an arrangement. I don't know, but that's how I'd be getting the goods in his situation.

And as for the Enclave - really? Wait. What's that? There are Nazi groups in the United States? Impossible! All the Nazis were killed in Berlin in 1945! Do you know how stupid you sound right now? 100% of the Enclave were gathered on the rig when it was destroyed, and any Enclave-like thinking was purged at the same time, so that the group may never rise again. Oh, and the Brotherhood of Steel whipped out their magical bad-guy trackers and found every single Enclave follower everywhere in the wastes.

And one last point - Super Mutants. So genetic testing is unreliable and has negative long term effects on its subjects. Why is this a surprise to anybody?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

1. Not sure about that one, but is it really impossible for some of them to exist outside of the oil rig?
2. That was entirely explained, and even had an entire faction war (outcasts) over the brotherhood's purpose.
3. A large portion of fallout 3's main story was dedicated to exploring a vault where super mutants were capturing humans and irradiating them to make more super mutants. I'm not sure where you got that.
4. I'm not sure how you can consider that to be an inconsistency.

1. Yes. The oil rig WAS the Enclave. Beyond that was just some little stations that were wiped out by BoS. Tiny fragments escaped out into who-knows-where. You could argue that those refugees reformed the Enclave, but that doesn't explain why they have such numbers and so much equipment (So many helicopters! This is a post-apocalyptic world! Where are they getting and how are they fueling all these helicopters?), and it really makes their imprisonment of Nathan (the one guy on their side) baffling.

2. Yes, but old Fallout fans coming to see the Brotherhood of Steel would have been sorely disappointed. That's not the BoS.

3. You misunderstand. They kept the FEV (questionable, since that was a top-secret product being made on the west coast) and the old explanation for how Super Mutants came to be that way, but they act like mindless ogres now. Super Mutants are supposed to be intelligent, they just believe that they're the future of humanity now and thus ordinary people are obsolete.

4. There's just no reason for him to be a tree. He wasn't one before and there was no indication he would ever become one. It's one of those "wat" moments found all over FO3, like how Dukov is getting all this food and booze (valuable, precious resources) without leaving his hotel room, and why, when every day is a struggle to survive, people are concerned with collecting Nuka-Cola memorabilia, robot emancipation and super-hero cosplay.

First off fallout NV handles most of these nicely.

1: Enclave destroyed, helicopters now very very very rare, and the enclave base is where they scavanged it all from.

2: BOS now recluse tech gathering future fearing paranoid people. Much more fun. Different factions behave differently because different people are in them

3: Original smart super mutants, usually taking advantage of the stupid ones - See super mutant town and black mountain

4: So because he wasnt a tree before and no one said "hes going to be a tree" he cant be a tree... thats pretty weak :/ When i saw pictures of him, (i googled his old character as it sounded interesting) this seemed like the logical step to me, trees grow, unless you hadnt noticed. The cult around him was also good, as was the moral choice.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Mutants HAVE gender, they are just infertile. You see a female one in Fallout 2 and New Vegas. The New FEV was horrid writing.

Untrue, she WAS female, and has retained subconciously the memory of being female, and so acts female despite being 100% physically asexual. All super mutants have identical bodies in terms of gender.

 

[octafish]

You know it's funny you should mention Tactics. I think that Fallout 3 and Tactics are exactly the same thing. Good games, maybe even great games, just not good Fallout games.

Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 was the first Bethesda game I enjoyed playing since Daggerfall and I really had a blast playing it, but it just seemed to miss the point of Fallout. I was skeptical about the FPS thing (I generally don't like RPGs that require player skill for success, because I am an old Pen and Paper geek) but VATS took the worry out of that.

Also, Bethesda suck at characters and story and that is a pretty important part of a Fallout game.

Anyway to paraphrase Rusty Crowe: God bless Interplay. God save Ron Perlman. God defend Bethesda and thank Christ for Obsidian.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Fair enough, Skyrim is exempt from this.

With my exams coming in less than a week, I figured it wasn't a very good idea to buy a million-hour RPG just yet.

Yeah, it's a lot better trust me.

What I would LOVE to see for Fallout 4 is have Bethesda build the world, make the atmospherics and the visuals and build the physical aspects of the quests, and for Obsidian to do all of the writing (but for the love of God never let Obsidian near a one or zero).

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I don't know how Harold can be written out of his situation.

He is literally rooted into the ground and his organs (well, his heart) are located underground and seemingly separate from his main body. Harold's body seems to have almost become as fucked as The Master and I can't think of a way to fix this short of "magic radiation".

Oh, there are ways alright

 

[ChupathingyX]

Oh, there are ways alright

It's just not the same!!!!

Harold's appearance is part of his character, it just wouldn't feel right talking to a brain.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Oh, there are ways alright

It's just not the same!!!!

Harold's appearance is part of his character, it just wouldn't feel right talking to a brain.

So you could have an awesome mission to find/build him a new ghoulish body

 

[Syzygy23]

I don't see many people complaining that the actual games were better so much as the writing.

My impression of Fallout 3 was that it was basically a reskin of oblivion that made some really horrible missteps in terms of storytelling. There were particularly good parts, while the BoS differed considerably from the earlier games, they did alot with them in terms of inner conflict and backstory to make it jive with the Fallout universe... then they had that f****** cave with preteens that somehow managed to hold back and active vault that was still producing supermutants and killed the entire game for me. If there was ever a need for a child killing mod that was it. Overall the game was OK, but the Fallout IP wouldn't have been any worse off if that particular game was never released.

Then Bethsoft handed over the rights to people who actually made the originals and a living, breathing, advancing Fallout universe was made. In short, the best thing Bethsoft's purchase of the IP did was allow them to hand over development to the original writers.

So all games that use the unreal engine are just reskins of unreal is what you're saying.

Also,why did you only start questioning thegames writing when you came across little lamplight? Children killing supermutants? You mean you had NO PROBLEM playing as a person who's entire experience with surviving in the wastes up until he/she left the vault was shooting a few radroaches with a BB gun and maybe getting in a fistfight with Butch? You didn't stop to wonder "How does someone who lived a very sheltered life in a vault for 18 years suddenly have the skill to survive multiple bullet wounds as well as take on any amount of highly trained killers in POWER ARMOR?"

REALLY?

Admit it, you let nostalgia cloud your judgement.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Speaking of not staying faithful to the originals and being a lot worse, Fallout tactics. What the fuck was that?

A pretty decent tactical game that has nothing to do with cRPGing, taking place in Fallout's setting. I don't know why people make a big deal out of it. IT's like Dr. Mario or other spinn-off.

Can't we all just recognize when something has gotten better, and stop excluding people for the sake of being annoying hipsters?

Yes, we can. But we don't have to.

 

[Vault101]

So after hearing the constant blabbing about how much better the Interplay Fallouts were then the newer Fallouts, I bought fallout 1,2, and tactics. Fallout 1 and 2 are good, but not enough to consider them to be "superior" to the newer Fallouts, and certainly not enough to consider anyone who has only played Bethesda-published Fallouts to be "not true Fallout fans". Not only that, but Interplay fans should love Bethesda. They took the Fallout franchise and made it economically viable, while staying faithful to the originals. It could have been a lot worse. Speaking of not staying faithful to the originals and being a lot worse, Fallout tactics. What the fuck was that? Would it really be better if Bethesda had never bought the Fallout IP and Van Buren was released to be a total flop? Would that in any way benefit the franchise? Bethesda has exposed fallout to far more people then it ever would have reached.

This sort of thing is not exclusive to Fallout. There are plenty of people saying that Portal 2 is a bad sequel, as is Half life 2, where both are stellar improvements on their originals, minus the originality that the originals had. Can't we all just recognize when something has gotten better, and stop excluding people for the sake of being annoying hipsters?

I can accept that because of technical reasons and other reasons the original games might have a few thing better than in FO3 (dialuge charachters) , FO3 is a great game..it has alot of flaws

BUT we have to keep in mind thease are VERY different games in alot of ways, it might also be a preference thing for fans of the older games

anyway as somone said above I do really get sick of people saying FO3 compleey fucked up the lore.....ok YES they twisted things around to make it black and white..but it was made pretty clear that this was not how the brotherhood usually roll (as in everyone complaing, the existance of the outcasts) which I think is alot better than simply changing the botherhood

ANYWAY thing is you'll always get this, and unfortunatly there is no right answer, Im right for saying i really liked fallout 3 and others are just as right in saying they prefer the originals

after a certain point arguing over it seems pointless

 

[orangeban]

Fallout 3 did not stay faithful to the originals, I'm sorry but it didn't. What do I consider the key elements of the original Fallout?

-Clever writing
-Clever combat system
-In-depth character system/stat system
-Clever and plausible setting

Fallout 3 had none of that, none of it.

 

[Vault101]

Fallout 3 did not stay faithful to the originals, I'm sorry but it didn't. What do I consider the key elements of the original Fallout?

-Clever writing
-Clever combat system
-In-depth character system/stat system
-Clever and plausible setting[/B]

Fallout 3 had none of that, none of it.

plausable??...really?

if you start pointing out the scientific inacuracies in fallout then your missing the point

 

[Snotnarok]

Because people don't like different, they like things to be the same or similar with minor improvements. Even when it comes down to quirks that make the game harder to understand or just being difficult for others to get into.

I see people complain about Skyrim not being as good as Oblivion because they simplified it in someways. Honestly? I thought Oblivion was an unfinished mess even with mods it was still a tedious unfinished feeling game. Skyrim I'm in love with, they got so many things right I just can't see a single thing Oblivion has on Skyrim. I honestly think that Morrowind besides the combat was better than Oblivion in general, hell with mods I've seen it look better than Oblvion so there's that too.

Also saw a lot of complaints of simplification from Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2, taking out the ammo/armor mods and gun and armor buying I think they were referring to. However yet again that was trimming out what was convoluted and unneeded. I blew through 1 on the hardest mode without swapping out my ammo mods, kept it on some 'general damage' mod and never looked back till I found out I had a better version.

 

[orangeban]

Fallout 3 did not stay faithful to the originals, I'm sorry but it didn't. What do I consider the key elements of the original Fallout?

-Clever writing
-Clever combat system
-In-depth character system/stat system
-Clever and plausible setting[/B]

Fallout 3 had none of that, none of it.

plausable??...really?

if you start pointing out the scientific inacuracies in fallout then your missing the point

When I say plausible, I mean that at least they tried and made it look like people are trying to rebuild society, what with houses, farms, proper caravans.

In Fallout 3 everyone lived in crappy shacks eating canned food, 200 years after the apocalypse! It was stupid! The setting was meant to provide a world that is slowly rebuilding itself, but Fallout 3's world was just stuck in the past!

 

[Vault101]

Fallout 3 did not stay faithful to the originals, I'm sorry but it didn't. What do I consider the key elements of the original Fallout?

-Clever writing
-Clever combat system
-In-depth character system/stat system
-Clever and plausible setting[/B]

Fallout 3 had none of that, none of it.

plausable??...really?

if you start pointing out the scientific inacuracies in fallout then your missing the point

When I say plausible, I mean that at least they tried and made it look like people are trying to rebuild society, what with houses, farms, proper caravans.

In Fallout 3 everyone lived in crappy shacks eating canned food, 200 years after the apocalypse! It was stupid! The setting was meant to provide a world that is slowly rebuilding itself, but Fallout 3's world was just stuck in the past!

well I guess the Idea was that the capitol wasteland was a huge shithole compared to other places...I mean there were settelements and people were just kinf of getting by..barley, but ok I can "sort of" see where your coming from

NV was better in that regard..though when somone said they were poor and starving..I really didnt belive them (because of how easy it was to get back on top after being shot and left for dead...in hardcore mode too)

but yeah I guess NV's Idea was "world rebuilding itself" whereas fallout 3 was "look! wasteland! go nuts" thing is though fallotu 3 had a different feel...it was very post apocalyptic and grim (especially the washington part) whcih NV didnt have (but obviously that wasnt what NV was going for)

 

[4RM3D]

In Fallout 2 you could complete the game without killing a single enemy*; you could talk, sneak, science your way through everything. Heck, the writers went even that far as to write a completely retarded dialogue for retards (that is players with an intelligence of 1). That was hilarious.

Anyway, which other game you know of had that kind of freedom? (Not talking about open-world-freedom here)

*That actually depends on how you look at it. If reprogramming turrets to kill the final boss, counts as...well... you killing something, then that would be the one exception in the game.

Fallout 2 > FO:NV > FO3. Even though FO:NV isn't as good as FO2, it's still a worthy successor.

 

[ChupathingyX]

but yeah I guess NV's Idea was "world rebuilding itself" whereas fallout 3 was "look! wasteland! go nuts" thing is though fallotu 3 had a different feel...it was very post apocalyptic and grim (especially the washington part) whcih NV didnt have (but obviously that wasnt what NV was going for)

NV was grim in a much different and less obvious way.

To see the grimness of NV you have to look at the political and societal side of it, such as the Followers. They're a bunch of optimistic doctors and scientists who are trying to help people and want peace. Now notice how out of their 6 endings only 1 of them is "good", and Arcade has 11 different endings, only two of which are argueable "good"...nice guys finish last.

 

[Rastrelly]

So after hearing the constant blabbing about how much better the Interplay Fallouts were then the newer Fallouts, I bought fallout 1,2, and tactics. Fallout 1 and 2 are good, but not enough to consider them to be "superior" to the newer Fallouts, and certainly not enough to consider anyone who has only played Bethesda-published Fallouts to be "not true Fallout fans". Not only that, but Interplay fans should love Bethesda. They took the Fallout franchise and made it economically viable, while staying faithful to the originals. It could have been a lot worse. Speaking of not staying faithful to the originals and being a lot worse, Fallout tactics. What the fuck was that? Would it really be better if Bethesda had never bought the Fallout IP and Van Buren was released to be a total flop? Would that in any way benefit the franchise? Bethesda has exposed fallout to far more people then it ever would have reached.

This sort of thing is not exclusive to Fallout. There are plenty of people saying that Portal 2 is a bad sequel, as is Half life 2, where both are stellar improvements on their originals, minus the originality that the originals had. Can't we all just recognize when something has gotten better, and stop excluding people for the sake of being annoying hipsters?

Maaaaan, you're so completely wrong... Think of it this way: F1 and F2 were the originators. Without them there would not be neither F3, nor NV. Even more: these games have shown how to build a single-character RPG the right way. How to keep player engaged and interested. They have created a cult, which helped F3 become a good game, and NV (which can be considered a real Fallout 3 'cause it is developed by Black Isle's heir studios Obsidian) a great game. F1 and F2 are timeless classics. They are much deeper and variative then modern Fallouts. Only here you can really enjoy playing the diplomat, or brute, or freak, or whoever you want. That's simply it.