Hating progress (fallout)

[Vault101]

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.

I wasnt critcizing fallout NV for its lack of "grim"-ness I was just saying that it had a very different "feel" to fallout 3, which is hard to explain

of coarse evil tyrants trying to take over, and the people who are cought in the middle is very grim indeed

 

[Who Dares Wins]

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

No. No. NO. NO. The atmosphere in NV was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Fallout 3 when it came to feeling like Fallout. Also, Bethesda does the QA for all their games, NV's buggines was Bethesda's fault.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I wasnt critcizing fallout NV for its lack of "grim"-ness I was just saying that it had a very different "feel" to fallout 3, which is hard to explain

of coarse evil tyrants trying to take over, and the people who are cought in the middle is very grim indeed

Oh I know you weren't criticising, it's just that you said NV didn't have a grim feel. I was just pointing out that NV was grim but in a more subtle way.

 

[Walter44]

It's a different genre. Is it even remotely surprising that fans of a tactical, turn-based RPG franchise will be annoyed that the new entry in their series is a first-person shooter (with RPG elements)?

Just to get this out of the way before my main argument: It's not an FPS with RPG-Elements. If anything, it's an RPG with FPS-Elements. If it was primarily an FPS, you wouldn't take up so much time talking and negotiating and just exploring. And you wouldn't have Quests that would let you decide doing things without engaging in combat. I know it sounds stupid, but just because a game let's you shoot in First-Person, it's not automatically a First-Person-Shooter.

Anyway, as for my stand in this debate:
I first got really interested in the FO-Series when I read a preview for FO3. I liked how they described the freedom of choice and the atmosphere. Coincidentally, I got FO2 as a gift for subscribing to the magazine that published this preview. I installed and was hooked for weeks! I finally got 3 on Christmas. I played and enjoyed it. But after I was done (completely done, with DLCs and all) I asked myself some questions: Why should I poison the water of the Capital Wasteland and ruin my father's work because a computer I blew up just days ago told me to? Why does the BoS want a rampaging thief, cannibal and slayer of the innocent to fight for them? Even though one of them refuses to follow me because of my actions? She seems to know that I'm an a**hole. Did she just not tell the others or what? And why should I blow up the Citadel? Yeah, I get some nice equipment when I do that, but first of all, that is some stupid motivation for killing off the faction I spent most of my time with and second, I don't even KNOW about that! Also, are the people of Washington retarded or something? They had 200 friggin' years and the best they have to offer is a settlement built out of plane parts and one inside a ship! AND BOTH HAVEN'T EVEN GOT 100 INHABITANTS!
The thing with the BoS and the Enclave didn't really bother me. I thought it was well explained that Lyons was just a good person who couldn't see the people suffer (especially because, like I said, they all seem to be retarded, while he comes from a place where there are settlements you could very well call a Metropolis) and there were people in his chapter that supported his viewpoints and others who didn't. Okay, that doesn't explain why the PENTAGON only has the shoddy T-45d Power Armor and there are only TWO suits of the regular T-51b (and one of them only if you installed Operation Anchorage) in the entire Capital Wasteland, but still.
And the Enclave...well, there were still soldiers patrolling the Core Region after the Oil Rig was destroyed and Navarro still had Vertibirds, if I remember correctly. Also, Raven Rock was a base built before the war, so it still could have had a lot of technology inside it.

So, my biggest gripes were the lack of real choice in the main story, the lack of consistency regarding my actions (I can understand that my father can forgive me for blowing up Megaton, but I don't get why the White Knights of the Wasteland still see me as their savior just cause I share some genes with a scientist!) and the thing that in the Fallout Universe, the DC Area seems to be occupied by morons who experienced the Great War by going out of their houses, looking at the nukes and saying "Ooooh, nice!" (hence the little number of people still living. For goddness' sake, there's a 'town' with TWO PEOPLE LIVING IN IT! WHY DON'T YOU GO TO MEGATON OR RIVET CITY?) and the rest, who managed to survive and have offspring was unfortunately 'blessed' with a genetic code that stopped their descendants from developing any kind of new civilization in TWO-HUNDRED YEARS! California had that after just 84!

I still liked the game, but NV and especially FO2 (haven't played FO1) are far superior in terms of consistency and logic (for those complaining about the science in the FO-Universe: It was explained somewhere, that the science in the Fallout-Universe works differently from ours. Hence the ability to become a zombie-like creature from too much radiation)

 

[M4t3us]

Allow me to whore myself into this thread and point out my review: http://spoilerwarned.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/retro-futurism/

With that out of the way... From my pov the "cannon inconsistencies" excuse has been proven to be a matter of just how much of a fanboy you are. I'm the biggest Fallout 2 fanboy out there and I loved Fallout 3, Bethesda's writing killed the FO spirit a bit, true, but I think Fallout 3 was a step in the right direction. As New Vegas would have been if Obsidian had only been allowed to do the writing and nothing else.

 

[Deadyawn]

Another important thing is that the story and writing in FO3 was terrible. Bethesda can't write. They're the George Lucas of video games.

That's not really true anymore, the writing in Skyrim is a big improvement on the previous games.

Skyrim's writing is't good. at best it's ok. At worst it's mind numbingly boring. It's kinda sad when a big improvement means that the story is merely uninteresting rather than stupid.

 

[monkey_man]

Nostalgia is a powerful force.

As much as I may disagree with curmudgeons hanging on to their Mass Effect 1's, their BioShock 1's, their Halo 1's, they still have a right to their opinions as well.

Bioshock was a genuinly good game, for the time it was really good. Surely it becomes a little too easy after a while, but the narrative is good, the characters are well-written and it really has atmosphere. I'd say it will still be good after ten years from now, even though loads of people will be saying that it doesn't look realistic enough.

Anyway, I never played the first 2 fallouts, So I can't really express my opinion about them. But I have to say that I consider Fallout 3 to have more atmosphere than NV, It's more immersive. The major flaw for me is the assault rifle and guns in general. That(AR) thing is arse. The Vault wanderer can't aim for shit. Fallout NV was just a bit too yellow and cowboyish, not what I think of when I think Fallout. It's too intact.

 

[Aprilgold]

Fallout 3 - A shooter in Post Apolyptic 50s.

Fallout New Vegas - A FPS that actually was a sequel to the series its named on. Had everything the old ones had and added some.

 

[sb666]

I just saw a Thread just like this one a few days ago. As far as im concerned Fallout 3 is a spin off and not a sequal.

 

[Jakub324]

Dammit. Accidental double post.

 

[Jakub324]

I think bethesda distancing Fallout 3 from the main narrative was intentional, but as far as I can tell there aren't any major inconsistencies with the universe itself.

Yes, there are.

2. The Brotherhood Of Steel are pre-war technology-hoarding misanthropes, not the gallant knights of the wasteland.
3. Super Mutants are a (botched) enhancement of humans. They are not ogres or orcs.

Those two can be explained:
- The Brotherhood came to Washington and Lyons decided something needed to be done to help the locals. That's why they have no support from their Western counterparts and why the Brotherhood Outcasts are what they are - they objected to Lyons' perverting of their mission and broke away to continue their goal of gathering and preserving technology.
- The Super Mutants in Washington have completely different origins to the ones in previous games, so they would be different.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[

No. No. NO. NO. The atmosphere in NV was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Fallout 3 when it came to feeling like Fallout. Also, Bethesda does the QA for all their games, NV's buggines was Bethesda's fault.

Derp. Derp. DERP. DERP. The atmosphere in Fallout 3 was preferable to me and many people. Opinions, they're great. I'd rather Bethesda's atmospherics than Obsidian's bland, bare, thrown together areas thanks.

EDIT: I personally don't give a fuck if it 'feels' like Fallout. It it 'feels' like F3 I'll be more than happy.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

Opinions.

Yeah, when you break it down, it ultimately just comes to them. And there's probably very little I could do to change anyone's, so I won't even try.

 

[Freaky Lou]

2.I'm so fucking sick of hearing from fallout 1 and 2 fans how the BOS in FO3 is so terribly inconsistent with the lore, because it isn't. It isn't incredibly difficult to believe that there could be a split in leadership or disagreement with the way things are run, and there was. If you don't like that, fine that's your decision and opinion but stop calling it a fucking lore inconsistency.

3. It's been a while since I looked at the lore regarding this one but FEV experiments were going on at a vault in the DC Wasteland as well as Mariposa Base. The first Mutants in the West were created by the master. I don't really remember who created the first mutants in the east. It isn't too much of a stretch to assume that the east and west coast laboratories arrived at separate but similar results. Bit of hand waving going on but not a major inconsistency and certainly not one to ruin the game in any way.

4. Really??? Did you play Fallout 2???? In Fallout 2 Harold has a tree growing out of his head I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that it would grow bigger. Again not a lore inconsistency.

OH and I love how your complaining about "What??" moments in Fallout 3 lol as if fallout 1 and 2 were well known for their seriousness lol.

2. I still think the white-knight BoS is stupid but fine, I'll give you that one. The main issue is that there's no reason to change them beyond Bethesda wanting there to be a clear-cut good guys and bad guys, which is something that Fallout doesn't do.

3. The Mutants being there isn't the big problem. The fact that they act like mindless ogres is the problem. While we're at this, how could the Behemoths possibly come to be? That was one of the dumber things in FO3, and you'll note that there's no behemoths or gore bags in New Vegas.

4. Fine.

As for FO1 and 2 being serious...the first one definitely was. There was some wit in there, but none of the goofy stuff like we see in 2 and New Vegas. But the problem isn't having over-the-top things, the problem is having STUPID things and playing them straight. The robot emancipation quest is supposed to be dead serious, and the Dukov thing is also meant to be an example of life after the apocalypse. But it doesn't make sense.

Still, the main point of this slightly off-track discussion was lore inconsistencies, and this is getting back into just general grievances with FO3.

3 wasn't a travesty as far as lore goes, but there are definitely some issues there. The main problem, however, is just that it's really dumb. This is coming from someone who immensely enjoyed FO3 btw.

First off fallout NV handles most of these nicely.

I know, and that's why old-school fans like it more. New Vegas is awesome.

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

The quest was good, as I noted, which was what saved that somewhat.

Those two can be explained:
- The Brotherhood came to Washington and Lyons decided something needed to be done to help the locals. That's why they have no support from their Western counterparts and why the Brotherhood Outcasts are what they are - they objected to Lyons' perverting of their mission and broke away to continue their goal of gathering and preserving technology.

True enough. It's still a reason that old-school Fallout fans might not like the game though, because changing them that way only serves to establish a "good" faction to the Enclave's "evil".

- The Super Mutants in Washington have completely different origins to the ones in previous games, so they would be different.

Really? They use the same FEV explanation for both. Either way, it still doesn't explain how they turned a human being into a Behemoth.

 

[Musicfreak]

[

No. No. NO. NO. The atmosphere in NV was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Fallout 3 when it came to feeling like Fallout. Also, Bethesda does the QA for all their games, NV's buggines was Bethesda's fault.

Derp. Derp. DERP. DERP. The atmosphere in Fallout 3 was preferable to me and many people. Opinions, they're great. I'd rather Bethesda's atmospherics than Obsidian's bland, bare, thrown together areas thanks.

EDIT: I personally don't give a fuck if it 'feels' like Fallout. It it 'feels' like F3 I'll be more than happy.

Yeah it seems like fallout fans are pretty divided between whether they like 3 or New Vegas better at least in terms of atmosphere. That being said it baffles me how you can call Obsidian's areas bland and thrown together in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of copy pasted office buildings and subways in FO3. That and FONV had much more color than FO3 ever did.

 

[Xangi]

I think bethesda distancing Fallout 3 from the main narrative was intentional, but as far as I can tell there aren't any major inconsistencies with the universe itself.

Yes, there are.

1. The Enclave shouldn't exist anymore. They were wiped out in Fallout 2.
2. The Brotherhood Of Steel are pre-war technology-hoarding misanthropes, not the gallant knights of the wasteland.
3. Super Mutants are a (botched) enhancement of humans. They are not ogres or orcs.
4. Harold is now a tree. That really bothered some people, but I personally just think it's kind of dumb. At least the quest involving him has a choice involved (one of the rare ones where it's up to you to decide the right thing to do, and not a choice of whether you want to be "good" or "evil".

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.

3 is from FO1. The Master tried to forcibly evolve humanity using the FEV, and created the Super Mutants. But then something happened (can't remember, or be asked to look it up) that caused the FEV to become airborne, which inoculated a lot of the population against it. Then that somehow led it to creating mutants with less and less intelligence or something.

Basically FO3 said "Well, to hell with that" And made the Mutants into orcs who eat and kidnap people and can barely even for 2 words into a coherent idea. I suppose they did try to handwave it a bit, but it still would come off as completely against canon if you played FO1 and 2 first.

EDIT: Oh and the mutants have no gender, which is why they need the FEV to reproduce. You can convince the master that this is also a major flaw (as they'd still need "inferior" humans to survive) and get him to... well, that's spoilers and I'd rather not even put in a spoiler tag. Play FO1 if you want to know.

sorry you got something wrong. the virus never went airbone. the hero of fallout 1 blew up the place where the humans were dunked into the dna changing goo (Mariposa Military Base).

it was one of the three major quest (get waterchip, stop the mutant master, destroy mutuant base)

the intelligence of the super mutants depended on the radiation level the test subject was exposed. thats why they tried to find as many vaults as possible and occasionally changed 'inferior' speciments as their minions. but since the scientists (humans and mutants) got killed in the explosion the data was lost and so some mutants tried to recreate the goo (with the forced evolution virus) but hardly succeeded.

------------------------------------

in fallout 2 and tactics supermutant had genders. in tactics you even had a mission as to secure data that could turn the mutants fertile again. and the excuse in 2 was that they were so damn ugly that you could not see the difference.

fallout 3 changed that.

also the outcast already were in fallout tactics and their agenda was to not be so strikt with their policy. in fallout 3 its the other way around.

but the thing that dissapointed me with fallout 3 was the random encounters. most often it depended if you were looking in the right direction and if you were lucky to walk into one (and not always just be near to trigger it and unknowingly walk past it.)
and even then they were just meh.. fallout 1&2 had the tardis, a time hole, the quest for the holy grail plus a holy handgrenade, the bride guardian from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, a car! and other wacky encounters wereas falout 3 just had sone retards fighting over a coke fridge and ufos.

other encounters like the battle between the Antagonizer and the Mechanist depended heavily on this. i remember to walk into the town from the other side and people constantly saying that this battle was always on between them. and i was then pissed i haven't seen it.

plus whenever people were wounded too much they would start to flee but i can hardly remember this in fallout 3. they were all on a kamikaze trip.

shooting outside of vats was horrendous. even with a fairly high skill on them. and the constant slow motion on part of your followers shooting...AR%%§)"=!.

in fallout 2 you could convince a little child to blow out the face of his mobster father and save yourself the trouble to finish him off. basically you could talk your way out of everything. EVERYTHING!

and like every one mentioned, breaking tradition with harold.

and fallout 3's ending. WTF?(especially with your super mutant follower) and even changing it in the dlc. STILL WTF!

yes fallout 3 had some awesome moments but it hardly felt like fallout.

fallout new vegas brought back some of the feeling with a good portion of wackiness that was profound in the 50's - 80's but for some it was to shinny and bright.

but still you had funny encounters, more followers (but still without the ability to push them away when they were in your way like in fallout 2), more interesting followers, not so black and white choices.....

snip

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.

no i think he wants to say that the unreal engine is one of the most buggy engines out there. ( i hope he means it so or else...)

plus why the hell do the people of Big Town not say fuck these little bastards and just keep their babies instead of bringing them to little lamplight.
and when children can keep some super mutants at bay and have a high education why the hell do they turn into complete dumb pussies when they turn 16?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Forced_Evolutionary_Virus

Look under "Coming of the Master". Radiation made the FEV go airborne, but it was so weak that it didn't cause any mutation. All it did was inoculate the victims.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

I haven't played FO1 or 2 yet, so I can't speak to inconsistencies, but there are a lot of legitimate reasons to not like Fallout 3 all on its own. Terrible writing, hateful characters, inconsistent and nonsensical world, poor art direction, the voice..."acting", the lack of choice, the binary nature of the choices that are included, the screwy balance of S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and perks. It's an OK open-world FPS but it's bad at pretty much everything I would say is important for making an RPG.

 

[Xangi]

I think bethesda distancing Fallout 3 from the main narrative was intentional, but as far as I can tell there aren't any major inconsistencies with the universe itself.

Yes, there are.

1. The Enclave shouldn't exist anymore. They were wiped out in Fallout 2.
2. The Brotherhood Of Steel are pre-war technology-hoarding misanthropes, not the gallant knights of the wasteland.
3. Super Mutants are a (botched) enhancement of humans. They are not ogres or orcs.
4. Harold is now a tree. That really bothered some people, but I personally just think it's kind of dumb. At least the quest involving him has a choice involved (one of the rare ones where it's up to you to decide the right thing to do, and not a choice of whether you want to be "good" or "evil".

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.

3 is from FO1. The Master tried to forcibly evolve humanity using the FEV, and created the Super Mutants. But then something happened (can't remember, or be asked to look it up) that caused the FEV to become airborne, which inoculated a lot of the population against it. Then that somehow led it to creating mutants with less and less intelligence or something.

Basically FO3 said "Well, to hell with that" And made the Mutants into orcs who eat and kidnap people and can barely even for 2 words into a coherent idea. I suppose they did try to handwave it a bit, but it still would come off as completely against canon if you played FO1 and 2 first.

EDIT: Oh and the mutants have no gender, which is why they need the FEV to reproduce. You can convince the master that this is also a major flaw (as they'd still need "inferior" humans to survive) and get him to... well, that's spoilers and I'd rather not even put in a spoiler tag. Play FO1 if you want to know.

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

RIIIGHT, damnit. It's the FO3 ones that have no gender. Whatever though, same difference, it's a huge flaw in the design, and you can use it to convince the master that his plan will never work.

 

[Hazy]

There was just a thread about this...
See? [http://new.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.330957-Why-is-everyone-so-down-on-Fallout-3?page=1]

Old Fallout fan's problems with Fallout 3 (not so much New Vegas) is that it inconsistent in lore and spirit to the original games. It's a good game. But it's a poor sequel to Fallout 1 and 2.

Fallout: New Vegas is given more leeway with fans of the Interplay Fallouts because it is consistent with those games' lore and it very much has the spirit (humor, themes, morality) of them as well.

Completely nailed it. Fallout 3 pretty much shit all over altered what Fallout 1 and 2 had established as canonical, which New Vegas brought back to it's roots.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Yeah it seems like fallout fans are pretty divided between whether they like 3 or New Vegas better at least in terms of atmosphere. That being said it baffles me how you can call Obsidian's areas bland and thrown together in comparison to the thousands upon thousands of copy pasted office buildings and subways in FO3. That and FONV had much more color than FO3 ever did.

More colours yes, but far less detail and atmosphere IMO. F3's locations all had much more atmospheric and dynamic lighting, much more environmental storytelling (which I'm a sucker for) and just generally far more detail and stuff to see in the environments.

Which is better is all down to taste, but I much preferred the busier, more atmospheric look of F3.

(sorry I had to rush the example here, comparing outdoors and indoors ain't a great example but you catch my drift)

F3

NV