Hating progress (fallout)

[Justice4L]

Well, maybe I'm biased as Fallout 3 is my favourite game of all time, but nothing, including perhaps some dodgy plot could hinder the amazing experience I had with that game, something that New Vegas didn't quite pull off.

 

[loc978]

Nothing wrong with preferring a spinoff... but Fallout 3 should be considered a spinoff rather than a sequel. I enjoyed the game, but yes, it was a departure from the Fallout series' themes. Being a major fan of the first two games, I preferred New Vegas (also, am I really the only person who had fewer bugs and far fewer crashes in New Vegas as opposed to Fallout 3? It really seemed like a totally revamped, tightened up game engine on my PC)

I like to think of the series like this:
-Fallout (Genesis of the series)
-Fallout 2: New Reno (Enclave conflict)
-Fallout 3: New Vegas (Caesar's Legion conflict)

Spinoffs:
-Fallout: Chicago (Tactics)
-Fallout: DC (3)

...and then that one bastard child on the PS2 that we don't like to talk about.

 

[Musicfreak]

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.

Yeah Fallout New Vegas definitely had less environmental storytelling and I did miss that. It's weird I enjoyed Fallout 3 more than New Vegas but I can't help but feel like New Vegas was the better game. I just have this feeling that If I played New Vegas before FO3 I would have enjoyed it much more. New Vegas just felt a little bit too much more of the same but I enjoyed the story and missions much more in New Vegas. Although I don't have anywhere near the hate people seem to have for FO3's story and liberty prime was definitely one of my favorite parts in the series.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

I think the problems in "Fallout 3" are more of an in-depth nature. They completely butchered "S.P.E.C.I.A.L.". Stats don't do jack in F3 and choosing starting skills only adds a bit to those skills, doesn't make them level faster as in F1and2. Also V.A.T.S. seems out of place in what seems to be a first-person-shooter. They'd better make the shooting mechanics better and drop the redundant V.A.T.S., that's only a fossil of the original's turn-based combat.

Main story-line starts out interesting enough (I actually grew on the dad, must be Liam Neeson and the protagonist's origin story), but goes completely bonkers towards the end. Not a fan.

Also, they went a little fantasy-y on the material. C'mon, mutants look like orcs... and a city of lost children, seriously? Other than that F3 is a great game, far superior to "New Vegas". Yes, I know it's by Obsidian with some of the original team present, but so what? Obsidian has too much ambition and too little resources to pull those ambitions off. Also, the presence of the original team doesn't guarantee a worthy sequel. Look at "Deus Ex: Invisible War" in which the only thing good was the story.

Oh, yeah, the originals are still better in most ways. So if you need to start somewhere, start there. Might be the nostalgia speaking, though.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

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

If Bethesda have half a brain they'll continue with their 'East Coast' Fallout and fund Obsidian to continue 'West Coast' Fallout with alternating releases... so Fallout 4 followed by Fallout: Whatever followed by Fallout 5 and so on. Keeps both sides of the argument mostly happy and the people who enjoyed both Bethesda and Obsidian offerings win twice.

Pity that neither company can do QA to save their lives, though...

 

[gideonkain]

I am very thankful that I never played the original Fallout series because it seems to have ruined their experience with Fallout 3, I thought it was a great game.

But, then STALKER 2 was cancelled and I started thinking about who would buy the franchise and I immediately thought of Bethesda making a STALKER game using the Creation *cough* Gamebryo 1.5 *cough* engine and it terrified me.

At it's core Fallout 3 really isn't that different from the Oblivion game it was built off of, add in guns, perks and rusty cars and it's pretty much the same thing.

Now, the idea of a STALKER 2 based off of Skyrim sickens me, probably as much as Fallout 1/2 fans seeing Fallout 3 become "Oblivion with Guns"

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Yeah Fallout New Vegas definitely had less environmental storytelling and I did miss that. It's weird I enjoyed Fallout 3 more than New Vegas but I can't help but feel like New Vegas was the better game. I just have this feeling that If I played New Vegas before FO3 I would have enjoyed it much more. New Vegas just felt a little bit too much more of the same but I enjoyed the story and missions much more in New Vegas. Although I don't have anywhere near the hate people seem to have for FO3's story and liberty prime was definitely one of my favorite parts in the series.

Haha I can relate to that feeling... F3 is my favourite game despite its many flaws and NV just didn't pull me into it in the same way. But I agree it does feel like the better game in many aspects, especially in the writing, levelling and combat balancing.

Still, all of that is secondary to the overall experience for me and fallout 3 definitely had the more memorable one. Getting lost in DC for the first time was more magical and fun than anything else I have ever done in a game.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

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.

Actually as a person who generally agrees with you on this point all 3 of these examples are ones where I disagree. Bioshock 2 at least was a shambles. Bioshock infinite on the other hand i looking godly. (ME2 was amazing but once again when asked what are your top 3 games it would be ME 1 on there not ME 2).

Well, maybe I'm biased as Fallout 3 is my favourite game of all time, but nothing, including perhaps some dodgy plot could hinder the amazing experience I had with that game, something that New Vegas didn't quite pull off.

Completely agreed. Actually. Completely agreed since Fallout 3 is also my favorite game of all time. That game was an experience. A real one. As someone who visited every single in game location in both games I can tell you that exploration was far more rewarding In F3. Miracle of Sound seems to be with me on this one. The places where more diverse and I still don't understand how in F:NV I could go into a significant place and come out with nothing. Most places in F:NV would be the equivalent of evergreen mills NOT containing the terrible shotgun.

F:NV had some things going for it; though the guns lacked character (one of the things bethesda emphasized in F3 and obsidian forgot in F:NV) they worked a shitload better. Also the way that the deathclaw are forced you to walk around the mountain range to reach the strip was one hell of a clever way to make the story epic as you got a huge sense of achievement traversing all that ground and sequentially helping the residents of settlements on the way so you could get to the next outpost of humanity.

Edit:

Yeah Fallout New Vegas definitely had less environmental storytelling and I did miss that. It's weird I enjoyed Fallout 3 more than New Vegas but I can't help but feel like New Vegas was the better game. I just have this feeling that If I played New Vegas before FO3 I would have enjoyed it much more. New Vegas just felt a little bit too much more of the same but I enjoyed the story and missions much more in New Vegas. Although I don't have anywhere near the hate people seem to have for FO3's story and liberty prime was definitely one of my favorite parts in the series.

Haha I can relate to that feeling... F3 is my favourite game despite its many flaws and NV just didn't pull me into it in the same way. But I agree it does feel like the better game in many aspects, especially in the writing, levelling and combat balancing.

Still, all of that is secondary to the overall experience for me and fallout 3 definitely had the more memorable one. Getting lost in DC for the first time was more magical and fun than anything else I have ever done in a game.

Sometimes I agree with the others that Fallout 3 was a spin off. And I am damn happy it was, Something about how gritty the east coast it being the more bombed area. Radiation was a big thing and whilst F:NV seems to focus a lot on the civilization that is growing on the mainland as a true sequel Fallout 3 does a better job of rendering true post-apocalyptic places. The city looked ruined and deserted with buildings falling apart. The guns seemed to be nearly broken and the Lone wanderer feeling was a lot stronger. The wide open areas in the game outside of DC felt huge and deserted and each settlement seemed desperate.

And finally new vegas had a smaller map. One of the things that irked me the most was how little of the space was playable. The whole west side was cut off at the river. the east side was cut off by mountains as was the north. The only direction in which you could walk all the way to the edge of the map properly was the south which was a bit boring. I was shocked when I looked at my map how much was empty on the fringes. When I walked there I found that I could go no further. It was then that I realised that F:NV was systematically better but lacked content.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

the Lone wanderer feeling was a lot stronger.

This was actually something I liked about Fallout 3. As one of those heretics who prefer Fallout 1 over Fallout 2, I found 3 to be reminiscent of the desolate feel that much of 1 had. Grimmer, lonelier, more desperate. The world far more broken.

In a lot of ways FO3 felt like it should have been set around the same time as 1 or between 1 and 2, where the environment was just as much a struggle as dealing with it's inhabitants and civilisation had barely started poking its head up.

FONV, much as I love it, is essentially a post-apocalyptic Spaghetti-Western with lasers.

 

[Condiments]

The reason why Fallout 3 isn't as accepted by older fans is that while FO3 retains the post apocalyptic trappings of the series, it missed fallout is at its "core". Sure, the 'exploring the ruins of a burgeoning civilization' was interesting, but this was in conjunction with a compelling character system. How you crafted your character would in turn, effect how you approached the game as a whole. This was made more compelling by its good writing, and atmosphere. The world was internally consistent, with finely placed 'dark humor'. Dungeons were a much smaller part of the overall experience.

Fallout 3 emphasized Bethesda's strengths, which in many ways jarred against what the series' represented. These things include combat emphasis, under-utilized character system, very open explorable barren world, goofy inconsistent roll-coaster design world(wannabe-vampires, druids, orcs/super mutants, etc.), dungeon/exploration emphasis. While quest design in FO3 was far improved over TES, its still wasn't enough.

FO:NV was considerably different in its tone, tried to put more emphasis on skill checks and character system. The world was overall more consistent, and actual improvements were made(faction systems). There WERE dungeons(vaults), but the emphasis was on your character and its interactions with the various communities and powers int the world. Combat was much less emphasized, but still more so than I wished. I still enjoyed it much more over 3.

 

[Xooiid]

I happened to like Fallout 3. It could be that I had just left Ft. Meade when it came out, so seeing how much detail they put into the city layout was a kick. Not to mention that there were a few more brilliant things about it:

1)The enclave, though based off the Oil Rig, was known to have several different outposts throughout the area, including the Navarro Outpost. It makes sense that they would flee across the Midwest, where their tech would keep them relatively protected from the storms, and set up shop in another area for their plans.

2) The FEV atmosphere burst did affect the West Coast population (And was a major plot point for Fallout 2), but since it didn't spread to the Eastern Coast, it wouldn't have the same effect. Super Mutants, either discovering a batch of FEV or carting their own, would be able to reproduce their ranks. Also, remember that these super mutants are in a somewhat 'infant' state, so mutants like Marcus wouldn't have the time to develop. Fawkes himself says that it's strange that he hasn't went insane.

3) I do admit that a lot of the lore was missing, and I don't agree with Harold being turned full tree, even though it makes sense. A couple of years back, when a Fallout MMO was being tossed about, one of the factions discussed was the 'Oasis Keepers', the tree people essentially expanding to spread word of their 'God' to the wastes. So Harold may make a cameo appearance, if in spirit only.

For a game in the main series, I think it fits well. Though, with the DC Wasteland slowly becoming modernized, and the NCR looking to restore the country (If they're still alive at the end of NV), it may be that another war in the Dead Plains of the Midwest is on the rise.

And war...war never changes.

 

[brainslurper]

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.

Waiiit. So you are blaming bethesda for the bugginess in a game that they didn't even develop? This is the irrational hatred of bethesda that we are talking about. The writing in NV was better then the writing in F3, but the aptmosphere was far better in f3. The universe in NV didn't feel as realized as it could have been, like if they had more time vegas wouldn't have been 2 casinos and a shop.

 

[brainslurper]

I happened to like Fallout 3. It could be that I had just left Ft. Meade when it came out, so seeing how much detail they put into the city layout was a kick. Not to mention that there were a few more brilliant things about it:

1)The enclave, though based off the Oil Rig, was known to have several different outposts throughout the area, including the Navarro Outpost. It makes sense that they would flee across the Midwest, where their tech would keep them relatively protected from the storms, and set up shop in another area for their plans.

2) The FEV atmosphere burst did affect the West Coast population (And was a major plot point for Fallout 2), but since it didn't spread to the Eastern Coast, it wouldn't have the same effect. Super Mutants, either discovering a batch of FEV or carting their own, would be able to reproduce their ranks. Also, remember that these super mutants are in a somewhat 'infant' state, so mutants like Marcus wouldn't have the time to develop. Fawkes himself says that it's strange that he hasn't went insane.

3) I do admit that a lot of the lore was missing, and I don't agree with Harold being turned full tree, even though it makes sense. A couple of years back, when a Fallout MMO was being tossed about, one of the factions discussed was the 'Oasis Keepers', the tree people essentially expanding to spread word of their 'God' to the wastes. So Harold may make a cameo appearance, if in spirit only.

For a game in the main series, I think it fits well. Though, with the DC Wasteland slowly becoming modernized, and the NCR looking to restore the country (If they're still alive at the end of NV), it may be that another war in the Dead Plains of the Midwest is on the rise.

And war...war never changes.

I agree, but all the NCR could have lost in NV was (spoilers) a president and control of the dam and the area surrounding vegas.

 

[brainslurper]

Faithful to the originals? *Vomits allover the screen* Not by a fucking long shot. Good game sure. But hardly faithful.

Fallout 3 was a decent game in its own right. But a shit Fallout game. (I spent 300+ hrs in it )

The earlier ones just captured the atmosphere so much better and had alot more variety in terms of characters and things you could do. And they were more RPG's while F3 is a Shooter with some RPG elements.

F:NV was a step in the right direction.

The fact that the first two had more segments of black humour made the seriousness of the various of topics and things you ran into so much more grim at times even though you were having a chuckle.

Fallout 3 is just.... Grey and bland mush. And the story sucked a hairy asshole and was a huge let down. F:NV's story was alot better by F3's standard.

A better story only counts for so much when the game won't let you see the effects of your actions.

 

[brainslurper]

Combat was much less emphasized, but still more so than I wished. I still enjoyed it much more over 3.

I would disagree. The game was far more combat oriented in my opinion, far more enemies and weapons, plus modifications and functioning ironsights.

 

[brainslurper]

1. The Enclave shouldn't exist anymore. They were wiped out in Fallout 2.

Not necessarily. A faction can be 'wiped out' but its ideologies and culture can remain for others to take up.

I'm tempted to break Godwin's Law here as an example.

They weren't "wiped out" either, at least not to the point where their presence in DC was impossible.

 

[brainslurper]

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)

A couple of things to point out.
The citadel tolerates your insanity because they need you, either that or bethesda didn't feel like writing another story for mean people.
The war killed off the majority of the population, so it wasn't until the vaults started to open that humanity started rebuilding itself. Even then there were irradiated monsters preventing any real progress from being made. There are no super mutants, death claws, or yao guai in California. As far as I know.
Why shouldn't you be able to blow up the citadel? Complaining about a choice you had the common sense not to make is pointless.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

I guess the lore inconsistencies are because of:
A) it's a reboot
B) Washington D.C. is a very long way away from central America, where all the other Fallouts took place.

 

[brainslurper]

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).

I would force obsidian's writers to use parchment and quills, just to be safe.

 

[brainslurper]

This is the second time a thread like this about Fallout has come around, and I'm seeing the same thing as I saw before with the "lore inconsistencies".

Now, this time, will someone please explain to a non-Fallout1&2-player what these "lore inconsistencies" are and how they are so damaging to the game that it is considered to have "ruined" the series?

In regards to stories between sequels, I never see "lore inconsistency" as a viable argument for the quality of a game as long it still has a solid turn out. I know people who claim to have hated WoW:Cataclysm (a reasonable opinion), but the first thing they bring up as a huge element that ruined the game was the addition of the playable Worgan and the "lore inconsistency" it brought that "ruined" the game.

As a writer, I firmly believe that the only question an author should answer in regards to lore is not whether or not to change it but should it be changed in the interest of bettering the story.

The enclave was dead since fallout 2. Bringing them back is bad writing, especially in those numbers.

Black and white morality. Fallout never did that. Only two bit hacks write this shit.

Making the old world glamorous. No fallout game ever did that. The old World sucked, and everyone knew it.

The BOS never care for anyone but technology. Turning them into this huge force of white knights is another bad plot.

The technology in Fallout 3 is too outdated for Fallout's world. They had future technology, not 1950s tech. Fallout 3 limited it to 1950s tech, but left out everything else.

Fallout 3 left out modern weapons and modern energy weapons. These were not prototypes, these were commercialized things.

Fallout followed some form of logic. Making radiation stay for 200 years while the rest of the world is rad free is another bad plot hole.

FEV was never a Vault tec project. That was a top secret project in mariposa ONLY by EXECUTIVE ORDER.

The GECK is NOT a magic device. Its a compilation of tools like a first aid kit. All it had was a reactor, some machines, some holotapes, and a pen flashlight. Nothing more.

Fallout 3 was written like a bad fan fic. Period. It added nothing, and did things only for the "cool factor."

Expecting every single bit of the enclave to be wiped out in fallout 2 is also bad writing.

You wouldn't glamorize the old world if you lived in an irradiated crater?

The brotherhood split in half over it's purpose. The outcasts left because they wanted to follow the brotherhood's old ideology. This is an example of dynamic characters, not inconsistency.

Have you really gotten the point of complaining about the presence of different weapons, especially when it is for the most part consistent?

Last time I checked, we don't turn into zombies when we are irradiated. We get cancer and die. Also, is it really that unlikely that Washington DC was hit harder then everywhere else?